Different studies used different ways to measure what people ate — some asked about food habits over a year, others just asked what they ate yesterday — which might make it harder to see real links between diet and heart disease.
Scientific Claim
The method of dietary assessment (e.g., food frequency questionnaire vs 24-hour recall) varied widely across studies included in the meta-analysis, potentially introducing measurement error that could obscure true associations between saturated fat and cardiovascular disease.
Original Statement
“A caveat of this study was its reliance on the accuracy of the dietary assessments of the component studies, which may vary depending on the method used... FFQs have become the method of choice... however, this method is also subject to random and systematic errors.”
Evidence Quality Assessment
Claim Status
appropriately stated
Study Design Support
Design supports claim
Appropriate Language Strength
association
Can only show association/correlation
Assessment Explanation
The claim accurately describes a documented methodological limitation without implying causation or effect. It is a factual summary of the study’s own discussion.
Evidence from Studies
Supporting (1)
Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease
Different studies used different ways to ask people what they ate, and those methods aren’t perfect — so the results might not show the real link between saturated fat and heart disease, even if one exists.