This paper summarizes a study published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association that compares five handheld computers used for nutrition assessment and support. The study evaluated computational features across three classification categories — anthropometric, biochemical, and dietary assessment — while excluding subjective variables such as operator speed. Key findings include differences in ideal body weight formulas, the absence of International units, and variations in basal energy expenditure calculations. The researchers concluded that no single device is universally best and offered a six-point decision strategy to help nutritionists select the most appropriate tool for their clinical setting.
This paper reviews a study published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association that examines and compares five handheld computers designed for use in nutrition assessment and support.
The primary purpose of the study was to compare and analyze the computational features of five commonly used handheld computers available for nutrition assessment and support. The researchers sought to identify differences between these devices and to determine whether any one type was superior to the others.
A secondary objective was to establish a practical strategy for nutritionists to help them select the device best suited to their individual clinical needs.
The researchers compared the objective and computational operating features of each of the five devices. Subjective features — such as speed, which depends heavily on the operator's experience — were excluded from the study. Computational features and functions were organized into three classifications: anthropometric, biochemical, or dietary assessment. For example, mean corpuscular volume and total lymphocyte count were categorized as biochemical measures.
The researchers also determined what computations each handheld computer was capable of performing. From this analysis, they produced two tables showing which device possessed which features and capabilities. This approach aligns with standard methods used in dietetics practice to evaluate clinical tools systematically.
"Differences in formulas, units, and calculations"
"No single best device; six-point selection strategy"
You’re 46% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.