Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22254029›Full record

ReviewNutrients2010

Vitamin D status during pregnancy and aspects of offspring health.

Anne-Louise Ponsonby, Robyn M Lucas, Sharon Lewis, Jane Halliday

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nutrients, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Supplementation of Vitamin D in the Postdelivery Period of Women with Previous Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Anne-Louise PonsonbyMurdoch Childrens Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Melbourne, Australia. anne-louise.ponsonby@mcri.edu.au
Robyn M Lucas
Sharon Lewis
Jane Halliday

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Low maternal vitamin D levels during pregnancy have been linked to various health outcomes in the offspring, ranging from periconceptional effects to diseases of adult onset. Maternal and infant cord 25(OH)D levels are highly correlated. Here, we review the available evidence for these adverse health effects. Most of the evidence has arisen from observational epidemiological studies, but randomized controlled trials are now underway. The evidence to date supports that women should be monitored and treated for vitamin D deficiency during pregnancy but optimal and upper limit serum 25(OH)D levels during pregnancy are not known.

Indexed as

AnimalsDietary SupplementsFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsPrenatal Exposure Delayed EffectsVitamin DVitamin D DeficiencyVitamin Doffspring healthpregnancysun exposureultraviolet radiationvitamin D

Identifiers

PMID22254029
PMCPMC3257641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.