The CKB study administered a qualitative FFQ at baseline (2004–2008) and the first resurvey (2008–2009) and then switched to a quantitative FFQ in the second resurvey (2013). The short qualitative FFQ chose 12 food items, including rice, wheat products, other staple foods (millet, corn, etc.), meat, poultry, fish/seafood, eggs, fresh vegetables, fresh fruit, dairy products, preserved vegetables, and dairy products according to recommendations from the Chinese Dietary Guidelines. Five frequency options were never or rarely, monthly, 1–3 days/week, 4–6 days/week, and daily. The quantitative FFQ retained the first nine food items in the qualitative FFQ and split the remaining three items into two or three subgroups (Supplementary Table S1). In addition, four new items were added, including pure fruit/vegetable juice, dried vegetables, carbonated soft drinks and other cold soft drinks. Alternative frequency levels remained the same as the qualitative FFQ. Participants estimated the average amount assisted by colour plates picturing the usual size and weight of food items.
Qin C., Guo Y., Pei P., Du H., Yang L., Chen Y., Shen X., Shi Z., Qi L., Chen J., Chen Z., Yu C., Lv J, & Li L. (2022). The Relative Validity and Reproducibility of Food Frequency Questionnaires in the China Kadoorie Biobank Study. Nutrients, 14(4), 794.
Other organizations :
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, University of Oxford, Qatar University, Tulane University, China National Center for Food Safety Risk Assessment
Type of food frequency questionnaire (qualitative vs. quantitative)
dependent variables
Frequency of consumption for different food items
control variables
Participants
Time period (2004–2008, 2008–2009, 2013)
controls
Positive control: Not mentioned
Negative control: Not mentioned
Annotations
Based on most similar protocols
Etiam vel ipsum. Morbi facilisis vestibulum nisl. Praesent cursus laoreet felis. Integer adipiscing pretium orci. Nulla facilisi. Quisque posuere bibendum purus. Nulla quam mauris, cursus eget, convallis ac, molestie non, enim. Aliquam congue. Quisque sagittis nonummy sapien. Proin molestie sem vitae urna. Maecenas lorem.
As authors may omit details in methods from publication, our AI will look for missing critical information across the 5 most similar protocols.
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to
get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required