Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27485466›Full record

ArticlePublic health nutrition2017

Maternal micronutrient consumption periconceptionally and during pregnancy: a prospective cohort study.

Michelle Livock, Peter J Anderson, Sharon Lewis, Stephen Bowden, Evelyne Muggli, Jane Halliday

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health nutrition, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Michelle Livock1Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences,The University of Melbourne,12th Floor Redmond Barry Building, Parkville, VIC 3010,Australia.
Peter J Anderson3Clinical Sciences,Murdoch Childrens Research Institute,Royal Children's Hospital,Parkville,Victoria,Australia.
Sharon Lewis2Public Health Genetics,Murdoch Childrens Research Institute,Royal Children's Hospital,Parkville,Victoria,Australia.
Stephen Bowden1Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences,The University of Melbourne,12th Floor Redmond Barry Building, Parkville, VIC 3010,Australia.
Evelyne Muggli2Public Health Genetics,Murdoch Childrens Research Institute,Royal Children's Hospital,Parkville,Victoria,Australia.
Jane Halliday2Public Health Genetics,Murdoch Childrens Research Institute,Royal Children's Hospital,Parkville,Victoria,Australia.
Murdoch Children's Research Institute · AURoyal Children's Hospital · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine overall micronutrient intake periconceptionally and throughout pregnancy in a population-based cohort of Australian women.

designIn a prospective cohort study, micronutrient dosages were extracted from self-reported maternal supplement use, recorded pre-conception, and for each trimester of pregnancy. A food frequency scale (DQESv2) captured usual maternal diet for gestational weeks 14-26. The influence of sociodemographic and lifestyle factors associated with supplement use was examined using logistic regression, and changes in micronutrient intakes prior to and throughout pregnancy were assessed using repeated-measures ANOVA analyses.

settingMetropolitan hospital sites in Melbourne, Australia. SUBJECTS: Women with a viable singleton pregnancy were recruited at less than 19 weeks' gestation (n 2146).

resultsCompared with non-users, women using supplements during pregnancy were more likely to have planned their pregnancy, be >25 years old, primiparous, Caucasian, non-smokers, have a tertiary education and be consuming a folate-rich diet. Intakes of folate, Fe and Zn were significantly lower in the periconceptional period, compared with other periods (P<0·001). Intakes below Recommended Daily Intake levels were common both periconceptionally and throughout pregnancy, with 19-46 % of women not meeting the Recommended Daily Intake for folate, 68-82 % for Fe and 17-36 % for Zn. Conversely, 15-19 % of women consumed beyond the recommended Upper Limit for folate and 11-24 % for Fe.

conclusionsThe study highlights the need for improved public health education on nutritional needs during pregnancy, especially among women with lower educational achievements and income.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultDemographyDietDietary SupplementsEatingFemaleGestational AgeHumansLogistic ModelsMaternal Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaMicronutrientsNutritional RequirementsNutritional StatusPreconception CarePregnancyMicronutrientsDietary supplementsFolateIronPregnancyZinc

Identifiers

PMID27485466
PMCPMC10262275
OpenAlexW2492233097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.