Comparison of two scoring systems used to monitor diets in outpatient clinical trials

William Harris, S. Jolene Held, Carlos A. Dujovne

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Dietary stability and compliance are crucial to the proper interpretation of the results of clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of lipid-lowering drugs since dietary variations can obscure the true effects of the drugs being tested. Documentation of compliance to National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) dietary guidelines can be difficult to obtain, however, especially since many diets may meet one or two but not all the criteria for a Step 1 or 2 classification. The purpose of this study was to compare the ability of two diet scoring systems (the Food Record Rating [FRR] and the Ratio of Ingested Saturated fat and Cholesterol to Calories [RISCC]) to classify these ambiguous diets. Methods: Three-day diet diaries (n = 622) were obtained from patients participating in a multicenter, clinical trial testing the lipid-lowering effects of a fiber supplement. The FRR score of each diary was calculated; the diary was then computer analyzed for nutrient composition, and the RISCC score was calculated. Based upon the NCEP dietary criteria for total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol each diet was classified as either Step 1 or Step 2. Diets exceeding Step 1 criteria were classified as typical American (Step 0). Diets not meeting all 3 criteria for any given Step were considered ‘NCEP unclassifiable’. Using the FRR and RISCC scores of only the NCEP-classifiable diets, the optimal RISCC and FRR cutoff points to distinguish between Step 0 and 1 diets and Step 1 and 2 diets were determined. Results: Only 50% of the diets were NCEP-classifiable. Using these diets, a RISCC of 20 best distinguished a Step 0 from a Step 1 diet, and 13 segregated Step 1 from 2 diets. The FRR cutoff points were 14 and 8, respectively. Using these values, the RISCC was able correctly to classify 92-97% of the diets, whereas the FRR correctly classified only 73-80%. Variability of scores within each Step was twice as high for the FRR as for the RISCC. The FRR was more biased by total kilocalories than was the RISCC. Conclusion: We conclude that the RISCC scoring system was more accurate and precise than the FRR system for diet classification, and was a superior tool for classifying the ambiguous diets. Since the RISCC also requires (and therefore provides) quantitative nutrient data and the FRR does not, the former is a better dietary monitoring tool for clinical trials.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)359-365
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Cardiovascular Risk
Volume2
Issue number4
StatePublished - 1995
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Outpatients
Clinical Trials
Cholesterol
Diet
Fats
Food
Education
Lipids
Nutrition Policy
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Documentation
Compliance
Multicenter Studies

Keywords

  • Cholesterol
  • Diet scoring systems
  • Dietary fat
  • Hyperlipidemia
  • Low-fat diets
  • Saturated fat

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Comparison of two scoring systems used to monitor diets in outpatient clinical trials. / Harris, William; Held, S. Jolene; Dujovne, Carlos A.

In: Journal of Cardiovascular Risk, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1995, p. 359-365.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harris, William ; Held, S. Jolene ; Dujovne, Carlos A. / Comparison of two scoring systems used to monitor diets in outpatient clinical trials. In: Journal of Cardiovascular Risk. 1995 ; Vol. 2, No. 4. pp. 359-365.
@article{4428b4c7dca14b8a960f34a14c771d54,
title = "Comparison of two scoring systems used to monitor diets in outpatient clinical trials",
abstract = "Background: Dietary stability and compliance are crucial to the proper interpretation of the results of clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of lipid-lowering drugs since dietary variations can obscure the true effects of the drugs being tested. Documentation of compliance to National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) dietary guidelines can be difficult to obtain, however, especially since many diets may meet one or two but not all the criteria for a Step 1 or 2 classification. The purpose of this study was to compare the ability of two diet scoring systems (the Food Record Rating [FRR] and the Ratio of Ingested Saturated fat and Cholesterol to Calories [RISCC]) to classify these ambiguous diets. Methods: Three-day diet diaries (n = 622) were obtained from patients participating in a multicenter, clinical trial testing the lipid-lowering effects of a fiber supplement. The FRR score of each diary was calculated; the diary was then computer analyzed for nutrient composition, and the RISCC score was calculated. Based upon the NCEP dietary criteria for total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol each diet was classified as either Step 1 or Step 2. Diets exceeding Step 1 criteria were classified as typical American (Step 0). Diets not meeting all 3 criteria for any given Step were considered ‘NCEP unclassifiable’. Using the FRR and RISCC scores of only the NCEP-classifiable diets, the optimal RISCC and FRR cutoff points to distinguish between Step 0 and 1 diets and Step 1 and 2 diets were determined. Results: Only 50{\%} of the diets were NCEP-classifiable. Using these diets, a RISCC of 20 best distinguished a Step 0 from a Step 1 diet, and 13 segregated Step 1 from 2 diets. The FRR cutoff points were 14 and 8, respectively. Using these values, the RISCC was able correctly to classify 92-97{\%} of the diets, whereas the FRR correctly classified only 73-80{\%}. Variability of scores within each Step was twice as high for the FRR as for the RISCC. The FRR was more biased by total kilocalories than was the RISCC. Conclusion: We conclude that the RISCC scoring system was more accurate and precise than the FRR system for diet classification, and was a superior tool for classifying the ambiguous diets. Since the RISCC also requires (and therefore provides) quantitative nutrient data and the FRR does not, the former is a better dietary monitoring tool for clinical trials.",
keywords = "Cholesterol, Diet scoring systems, Dietary fat, Hyperlipidemia, Low-fat diets, Saturated fat",
author = "William Harris and Held, {S. Jolene} and Dujovne, {Carlos A.}",
year = "1995",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2",
pages = "359--365",
journal = "European Journal of Preventive Cardiology",
issn = "2047-4873",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of two scoring systems used to monitor diets in outpatient clinical trials

AU - Harris, William

AU - Held, S. Jolene

AU - Dujovne, Carlos A.

PY - 1995

Y1 - 1995

N2 - Background: Dietary stability and compliance are crucial to the proper interpretation of the results of clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of lipid-lowering drugs since dietary variations can obscure the true effects of the drugs being tested. Documentation of compliance to National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) dietary guidelines can be difficult to obtain, however, especially since many diets may meet one or two but not all the criteria for a Step 1 or 2 classification. The purpose of this study was to compare the ability of two diet scoring systems (the Food Record Rating [FRR] and the Ratio of Ingested Saturated fat and Cholesterol to Calories [RISCC]) to classify these ambiguous diets. Methods: Three-day diet diaries (n = 622) were obtained from patients participating in a multicenter, clinical trial testing the lipid-lowering effects of a fiber supplement. The FRR score of each diary was calculated; the diary was then computer analyzed for nutrient composition, and the RISCC score was calculated. Based upon the NCEP dietary criteria for total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol each diet was classified as either Step 1 or Step 2. Diets exceeding Step 1 criteria were classified as typical American (Step 0). Diets not meeting all 3 criteria for any given Step were considered ‘NCEP unclassifiable’. Using the FRR and RISCC scores of only the NCEP-classifiable diets, the optimal RISCC and FRR cutoff points to distinguish between Step 0 and 1 diets and Step 1 and 2 diets were determined. Results: Only 50% of the diets were NCEP-classifiable. Using these diets, a RISCC of 20 best distinguished a Step 0 from a Step 1 diet, and 13 segregated Step 1 from 2 diets. The FRR cutoff points were 14 and 8, respectively. Using these values, the RISCC was able correctly to classify 92-97% of the diets, whereas the FRR correctly classified only 73-80%. Variability of scores within each Step was twice as high for the FRR as for the RISCC. The FRR was more biased by total kilocalories than was the RISCC. Conclusion: We conclude that the RISCC scoring system was more accurate and precise than the FRR system for diet classification, and was a superior tool for classifying the ambiguous diets. Since the RISCC also requires (and therefore provides) quantitative nutrient data and the FRR does not, the former is a better dietary monitoring tool for clinical trials.

AB - Background: Dietary stability and compliance are crucial to the proper interpretation of the results of clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of lipid-lowering drugs since dietary variations can obscure the true effects of the drugs being tested. Documentation of compliance to National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) dietary guidelines can be difficult to obtain, however, especially since many diets may meet one or two but not all the criteria for a Step 1 or 2 classification. The purpose of this study was to compare the ability of two diet scoring systems (the Food Record Rating [FRR] and the Ratio of Ingested Saturated fat and Cholesterol to Calories [RISCC]) to classify these ambiguous diets. Methods: Three-day diet diaries (n = 622) were obtained from patients participating in a multicenter, clinical trial testing the lipid-lowering effects of a fiber supplement. The FRR score of each diary was calculated; the diary was then computer analyzed for nutrient composition, and the RISCC score was calculated. Based upon the NCEP dietary criteria for total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol each diet was classified as either Step 1 or Step 2. Diets exceeding Step 1 criteria were classified as typical American (Step 0). Diets not meeting all 3 criteria for any given Step were considered ‘NCEP unclassifiable’. Using the FRR and RISCC scores of only the NCEP-classifiable diets, the optimal RISCC and FRR cutoff points to distinguish between Step 0 and 1 diets and Step 1 and 2 diets were determined. Results: Only 50% of the diets were NCEP-classifiable. Using these diets, a RISCC of 20 best distinguished a Step 0 from a Step 1 diet, and 13 segregated Step 1 from 2 diets. The FRR cutoff points were 14 and 8, respectively. Using these values, the RISCC was able correctly to classify 92-97% of the diets, whereas the FRR correctly classified only 73-80%. Variability of scores within each Step was twice as high for the FRR as for the RISCC. The FRR was more biased by total kilocalories than was the RISCC. Conclusion: We conclude that the RISCC scoring system was more accurate and precise than the FRR system for diet classification, and was a superior tool for classifying the ambiguous diets. Since the RISCC also requires (and therefore provides) quantitative nutrient data and the FRR does not, the former is a better dietary monitoring tool for clinical trials.

KW - Cholesterol

KW - Diet scoring systems

KW - Dietary fat

KW - Hyperlipidemia

KW - Low-fat diets

KW - Saturated fat

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028869123&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028869123&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 2

SP - 359

EP - 365

JO - European Journal of Preventive Cardiology

JF - European Journal of Preventive Cardiology

SN - 2047-4873

IS - 4

ER -