↓ Skip to main content

Validation of the German version of the Mediterranean Diet Adherence Screener (MEDAS) questionnaire

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validation of the German version of the Mediterranean Diet Adherence Screener (MEDAS) questionnaire
Published in
BMC Cancer, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12885-017-3337-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katrin Hebestreit, Maryam Yahiaoui-Doktor, Christoph Engel, Walter Vetter, Michael Siniatchkin, Nicole Erickson, Martin Halle, Marion Kiechle, Stephan C. Bischoff

Abstract

Health benefits of the Mediterranean Diet (MD) have been shown in different at-risk populations. A German translation of the Mediterranean Diet Adherence Screener (MEDAS) from the PREvención con DIeta MEDiterránea (PREDIMED) consortium was used in the LIBRE study, investigating effects of lifestyle-intervention on women with BRCA1/2 mutations. The purpose of the present study is to validate the MEDAS German version. LIBRE is a multicentre (three university hospitals during this pilot phase), unblinded, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Women with a BRCA1/2 mutation of age 18 or over who provided written consent were eligible for the trial. As part of the assessment, all were given a full-length Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) and MEDAS at baseline and after 3 months. Data derived from FFQ was compared to MEDAS in order to evaluate agreement or concordance between the two questionnaires. Additionally, the association of dietary intake biomarkers in the blood (β-carotene, omega-3, omega-6 and omega-9 fatty acids and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP)) with some MEDAS items was analyzed using t-Tests and a multivariate regression. The participants of the LIBRE pilot study were 68 in total (33 Intervention, 35 Control). Only participants who completed both questionnaires were included in this analysis (baseline: 66, month three: 54). The concordance between these two questionnaires varied between the items (Intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.91 for pulses at the highest and -0.33 for sugar-sweetened drinks). Mean MEDAS scores (sum of all items) were 9% higher than their FFQ counter-parts at baseline and 15% after 3 months. Higher fish consumption (at least 3 portions) was associated with lower omega-6 fatty acid levels (p = 0.026) and higher omega-3 fatty acid levels (p = 0.037), both results being statistically significant. We conclude that the German MEDAS in its current version could be a useful tool in clinical trials and in practice to assess adherence to MD. ClinicalTrials.gov , registered on March 12, 2014, identifier: NCT02087592 . World Health Organization Trial Registration, registered on 3 August 2015, identifier: NCT02087592 .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 20%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 3%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 31 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Engineering 2 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 34 38%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 May 2017.
All research outputs
#8,593,196
of 11,194,639 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,436
of 4,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,827
of 264,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#41
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,194,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,147 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,203 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.