BACKGROUND: Protein-energy malnutrition is highly prevalent in aged populations. Associated clinical, economic, and social burden is important. A valid screening method that would be robust and precise, but also easy, simple, and rapid to apply, is essential for adequate therapeutic management.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the interobserver variability of 2 methods measuring food intake: semiquantitative visual estimations made by nurses versus calorie measurements performed by dieticians on the basis of standardized color digital photographs of servings before and after consumption.
DESIGN: Observational monocentric pilot study.
SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A geriatric ward. The meals were randomly chosen from the meal tray. The choice was anonymous with respect to the patients who consumed them.
MEASUREMENTS: The test method consisted of the estimation of calorie consumption by dieticians on the basis of standardized color digital photographs of servings before and after consumption. The reference method was based on direct visual estimations of the meals by nurses. Food intake was expressed in the form of a percentage of the serving consumed and calorie intake was then calculated by a dietician based on these percentages. The methods were applied with no previous training of the observers. Analysis of variance was performed to compare their interobserver variability.
RESULTS: Of 15 meals consumed and initially examined, 6 were assessed with each method. Servings not consumed at all (0% consumption) or entirely consumed by the patient (100% consumption) were not included in the analysis so as to avoid systematic error. The digital photography method showed higher interobserver variability in calorie intake estimations. The difference between the compared methods was statistically significant (P < .03).
CONCLUSIONS: Calorie intake measures for geriatric patients are more concordant when estimated in a semiquantitative way. Digital photography for food intake estimation without previous specific training of dieticians should not be considered as a reference method in geriatric settings, as it shows no advantages in terms of interobserver variability.