Premium
Validation of a Sodium Screener in Two Samples
Author(s) -
Tangney Christy C,
Rasmussen Heather C,
Rusch Jesse,
Moss Olivia,
Cerwinske Leah A,
Richards Candace,
Li Michelle,
Appelhans Bradley M
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.30.1_supplement.293.6
Subject(s) - sodium , limits of agreement , high sodium , medicine , zoology , chemistry , nuclear medicine , organic chemistry , biology
Assessing adherence to a reduced sodium diet through 24‐hour urinary sodium analysis or repeated 24‐hour diet recalls is both costly and burdensome for patients. In effort to reduce burden, a brief Sodium Screener © (SS) was developed by NutritionQuest (Berkeley, CA) with scores ranging from 0 to 67 and higher scores reflecting higher sodium intakes. We evaluated the validity of the SS against a criterion method, repeated 24‐hour recalls, in two contexts: (1) 102 registered dietitians (RDs; 98 women) who completed three nonconsecutive Automated Self‐Administered 24‐hour Recalls (ASA24™‐2014) and then the SS (all online), and (2) 69 community participants (59 women) who had three 24‐hour recall (Nutrition Data System for Research 2015) interviews conducted by RDs or trained assistants and then completed the SS on paper. Descriptive statistics and correlations were performed using SPSS version 22 (IBM, 2013). In the RD sample, SS sodium scores ranged from 11–54, SS‐predicted sodium intake was 2581 ± 962 (mean ± SD), and ASA24™ derived sodium intakes averaged 3157 ± 902 mg/day (energy, 1811 ± 483 kcal/day). Sodium intakes from the two methods were correlated (energy‐adjusted, r=0.23, p=0.02; unadjusted, r=0.30, p=0.003). In the community sample, SS sodium scores ranged from 1–57, SS‐predicted sodium intake were 3086 ± 1240 mg, and sodium intakes based on averaged diet recalls were 2940 ± 1238mg/day (energy, 1943 ± 632 kcal/day). Energy‐adjusted or unadjusted sodium intakes correlated with SS‐predicted sodium estimates (r=0.28, p=0.02; r=0.44, p<0.001, respectively). Pending correction of recalls for within‐person error, further evaluation of the screener may be indicated.