Handheld Computers for Nutrition Assessment: A Study Review
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.
- Introduction: Overview of the study being reviewed
- Study Purpose and Objectives: Comparing handheld computers for nutritional use
- Methods and Classification Framework: Objective features assessed across three categories
- Key Results and Findings: Differences in formulas, units, and calculations
- Conclusions and Recommendations: No single best device; six-point selection strategy
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Clearly follows the IMRaD structure (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion), making it easy to locate and evaluate each component of the study.
- Uses precise disciplinary vocabulary — terms such as "anthropometric," "basal energy expenditure," and "mean corpuscular volume" — demonstrating familiarity with the field.
- Distinguishes carefully between objective and subjective features, showing critical awareness of the study's methodological scope and limitations.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective research summarization: it faithfully condenses a primary journal article into its essential components without editorializing or overreaching beyond what the study actually found. The use of a direct quotation from the source (p. 5) anchors the conclusions section in the authors' own words, adding credibility to the summary.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized into four functional sections mirroring the study itself: purpose, methods, results, and conclusions. Each section is concise and self-contained. The conclusion section adds practical value by noting the researchers' six-point decision strategy, which extends the summary beyond mere description toward applied usefulness for the reader.
Introduction
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.
Study Purpose and Objectives
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.
Methods and Classification Framework
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.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.