Table 3.

Quality rating of reporting of dietary assessment method(s) employed.

Author, Year	Dietary Assessment Method	Validation	Data Collection	Data Analysis	Score	Overall Rating
Feltham and Westman, 2021 [26]	NR	NR	Participant used nutrition information on packaging and a supermarket website to determine calorie and macronutrient compositions	NR	0	Poor
Gkouskou et al., 2022 [29]	24-h Recall	NR	Administered by a trained researcher via phone interview, but did not specify whether subjects were trained for data collection. The 24 h recall was reviewed/checked by a trained person. Did not specify days of recall, nutrient database(s) used nor comment on aids or multiple passes	Data coded and analyzed by a trained individual	1	Poor
Hendriks et al., 2021 [32]	Single Diet question on a visual analogue scale	NR	Self-reported eating habits via visual analogue scale were completed digitally in a secured data entry platform. Did not specify whether subjects were trained for data collection. Dietary Questions provided.	Unclear, but appears principal researcher carried out the analysis	1.25	Poor
Karkar et al., 2017 [27]	EMA questions	NR	Self-reported compliance with experimental menu condition via TummyTrials app), subjects were trained for data collection. Prompts to complete and compliance assessed by app. Weekend and weekdays were considered at six days’ recording. Dietary questionnaire (app EMA) supplied within text	Analysis built into app system and documented by researchers (consultation with dietitians)	3.0	Acceptable
Kwasnicka et al., 2020 [33]	EMA questions	NR	Self-reported alcohol consumption via smartphone survey; subjects were trained for data collection and the data reviewed by researchers as appropriate for this type of survey. Daily surveys sent at 7 p.m. to the mobile phones of participants or a study phone for 12 weeks, weekend and weekdays considered, and authors reported compliance with EMA prompts. Questions on amounts and types of alcohol in the previous 24 h. Questionnaire (EMA) supplied.	The researchers conducted the analysis	3.0	Acceptable
Ma et al., 2021 [30] Tian et al., 2020 [31]	Weighed food (known composition) provided and food checklist to track	Weighed food provided for which nutrient composition calculated and standard recipes used	All food provided via the University canteen. Diets designed by dietitian and participants sign in to show they consume the meal provided. Food checklist not provided and did not discuss method of checking; however, compliance with meals reported as 98%	Dietitian prepared diet of known composition. Did not specify whether checklist coded and analyzed by a trained individual	5.5	Good
Miller et al. 2016 [28]	24-Hour Recall	NR Unclear if validated by University of Minnesota service	Administered by trained staff via an interactive phone interview and collected unannounced. Nutrient database reported. Multiple days of recall (1 weekend day and 2 weekdays selected at random), multiple pass approach used, and a food amounts booklet was provided to help participant estimate portion sizes.	Analysis and coded by the University of Minnesota 24 h recall service	3.0	Acceptable
	EMA questions	Checklist used to prompt completion. Statistics on agreement with 24 h recall days not reported	Self-reported servings of low GI foods via PRO-Diary EMA; subjects were trained for data collection. Checklist of low-GI foods used to assist entry and memory. 6 weeks of EMA recording, weekend and weekdays considered, and authors reported compliance with EMA prompts	Did not specify whether coded and analyzed by a trained individual	3.0	Acceptable

NR: Not reported.