PWM: Foods and Nutrients (2006)
Rocandio AM, Ansotegui L, Arroyo M. Comparison of dietary intake among overweight and non-overweight school children. International Journal of Obesity 2001; 25: 1,651-1,655.PubMed ID: 11753586
To determine differences in dietary intake between overweight and non-overweight schoolchildren and differences in consumption during the day and in the course of the week.
Children age 11 years in good health were randomly selected.
- Sample was randomly selected. Further details regarding where sample was identified were not given.
- Students and parents were asked to read an explanation of the study and to sign an informed consent.
- Dependent variables: Weight-for-height (measured following standardized protocol); Overweight greater than 90th percentile compared with reference values for children (Instituto de Investigacion…1985).
- Independent variables: Dietary intake: total energy, energy distributed in the course of the day, average daily intake of the following dietary components: protein, carbohydrate, fat, saturated fat, monounsaturated fat and polyunsaturated fat, vitamins and minerals (seven-day food weighing method)
- Control variables: None specified
- Statistical analysis: Chi-squared tests and Student T-tests.
- Original sample: Not specified
- Final sample: 32 children (16 males, 16 females)
- Location: Spain
- Race/Ethnicity: Not specified
- SES: Not specified
- Age: 11 years old.
Energy intake reported in the overweight group was significantly lower than non-overweight (8,948.7±2,549.3kJ per day vs. 9,590.1±1,884.9kJ per day; P<0.01).
- Carbohydrate intake (reported as percent of total energy intake and as total grams) was significantly greater in the non-overweight schoolchildren (42.6 vs. 40.6%; P<0.01; 250.9±58.8g per day vs. 222.1±77.4g per day)
- Fat and protein intake (reported as percent of total energy intake and as total grams) was not significantly different in both groups of children
- There was no significant difference in fatty acid intake among overweight and non-overweight schoolchildren
- The mean fiber intake was 13.16±8.2g per day and was significantly greater in the non-overweight schoolchildren (14.8±9.1g per day vs. 11.8±7.1g per day; P<0.01).
***Note fiber was not noted to be a dietary measure studied in this analysis.
No significant differences between overweight and non-overweight children were found for micronutrient intake.
- The data suggest the belief that overweight children eat more than non-overweight children is not correct
- These findings suggest that the positive energy balance causing overweight is due possibly to a low energy output. However, the sample size studied is small, and future studies should assess a wider sample than that analyzed in the present study.
|University/Hospital:||Universidad del Pais Vasco (Spain)|
- Few details were given about the study protocol including inclusion and exclusion criteria, how subjects were selected, how many subjects were initially recruited
- Small sample size
- Statistical analyses could have been stronger; no variables noted to be controlled for.
Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
|1.||Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies)||Yes|
|2.||Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about?||Yes|
|3.||Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice?||Yes|
|4.||Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies)||Yes|
|1.||Was the research question clearly stated?||Yes|
|1.1.||Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified?||Yes|
|1.2.||Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated?||Yes|
|1.3.||Were the target population and setting specified?||No|
|2.||Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias?||???|
|2.1.||Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study?||No|
|2.2.||Were criteria applied equally to all study groups?||???|
|2.3.||Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described?||No|
|2.4.||Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population?||???|
|3.||Were study groups comparable?||???|
|3.1.||Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT)||Yes|
|3.2.||Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline?||???|
|3.3.||Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.)||No|
|3.4.||If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis?||???|
|3.5.||If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.)||???|
|3.6.||If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")?||N/A|
|4.||Was method of handling withdrawals described?||???|
|4.1.||Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups?||???|
|4.2.||Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.)||???|
|4.3.||Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for?||???|
|4.4.||Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups?||N/A|
|4.5.||If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study?||N/A|
|5.||Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias?||Yes|
|5.1.||In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate?||N/A|
|5.2.||Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.)||Yes|
|5.3.||In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded?||Yes|
|5.4.||In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status?||N/A|
|5.5.||In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results?||N/A|
|6.||Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described?||Yes|
|6.1.||In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied?||N/A|
|6.2.||In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described?||Yes|
|6.3.||Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect?||???|
|6.4.||Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured?||N/A|
|6.5.||Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described?||N/A|
|6.6.||Were extra or unplanned treatments described?||N/A|
|6.7.||Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups?||Yes|
|6.8.||In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient?||N/A|
|7.||Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable?||Yes|
|7.1.||Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question?||Yes|
|7.2.||Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern?||Yes|
|7.3.||Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur?||Yes|
|7.4.||Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures?||Yes|
|7.5.||Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision?||???|
|7.6.||Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes?||No|
|7.7.||Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups?||Yes|
|8.||Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators?||No|
|8.1.||Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately?||No|
|8.2.||Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated?||Yes|
|8.3.||Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals?||Yes|
|8.4.||Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)?||???|
|8.5.||Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)?||No|
|8.6.||Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported?||Yes|
|8.7.||If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error?||No|
|9.||Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration?||Yes|
|9.1.||Is there a discussion of findings?||Yes|
|9.2.||Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed?||No|
|10.||Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely?||Yes|
|10.1.||Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described?||No|
|10.2.||Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest?||Yes|