Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27544304›Full record

ArticleMaternal and child health journal2017

Maternal Nutrition During Pregnancy: Intake of Nutrients Important for Bone Health.

Natalie K Hyde, Sharon L Brennan-Olsen, Kathy Bennett, David J Moloney, Julie A Pasco

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Assessment of dietary intake and mineral status in pregnant women.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2018
    Article
  10. Diet in pregnancy-more than food.European journal of pediatrics · 2017
    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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Natalie K HydeEpi-Centre for Healthy Ageing, IMPACT Strategic Research Centre, School of Medicine, Deakin University (Barwon Health), PO Box 281, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia. nhyde@barwonhealth.org.au.
Sharon L Brennan-OlsenEpi-Centre for Healthy Ageing, IMPACT Strategic Research Centre, School of Medicine, Deakin University (Barwon Health), PO Box 281, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
Kathy BennettEpi-Centre for Healthy Ageing, IMPACT Strategic Research Centre, School of Medicine, Deakin University (Barwon Health), PO Box 281, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
David J MoloneyEpi-Centre for Healthy Ageing, IMPACT Strategic Research Centre, School of Medicine, Deakin University (Barwon Health), PO Box 281, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
Julie A PascoEpi-Centre for Healthy Ageing, IMPACT Strategic Research Centre, School of Medicine, Deakin University (Barwon Health), PO Box 281, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
Barwon Health · AUAustralian Catholic University · AUDeakin University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives Maternal nutrition during pregnancy plays an important role in predisposing offspring to the development of chronic disease in adulthood, including osteoporosis. Our aim was to investigate maternal dietary intakes during pregnancy, with a focus on nutrients important for skeletal development in the offspring. Methods In this case-control study, cases were pregnant women recruited for the Vitamin D in Pregnancy Study (n = 350, age 20-40 years) and controls were non-pregnant peers participating in the Geelong Osteoporosis Study (n = 305, age 20-40 years). Dietary intakes of nutrients were quantified using a validated food frequency questionnaire. Results Compared to controls, cases consumed more energy [median (interquartile range): 7831 (6506-9461) vs. 7136 (6112-8785) kJ/day]; median intakes for cases were greater for carbohydrates [206.2 (172.5-249.9) vs. 188.2 (147.7-217.5) g/day], fat [77.9 (60.3-96.6) vs. 72.1 (53.3-87.4) g/day], potassium [2860 (2363-3442) vs. 2606 (2166-3442) mg/day] and calcium [1022 (819-1264) vs. 918 (782-1264) mg/day] (all p ≤ 0.05). However, pregnant women were not consuming greater amounts of those nutrients which had an increased demand (protein, magnesium, phosphorus and zinc). Similarly, this translated to the likelihood of achieving national recommendations for corresponding nutrients. Conclusions for Practice Compared to their non-pregnant peers, pregnant women were more likely to meet dietary recommendations for calcium and potassium; however, this was not the pattern observed for protein, magnesium and zinc. Future public health messages should perhaps focus on increasing awareness of the importance of all these nutrients during pregnancy.

Indexed as

Maternal Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaNutritional RequirementsPrenatal Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaAdultBone and BonesBone DensityCase-Control StudiesDietFemaleFetal MovementHumansInfant, NewbornMalePregnancyPregnant PeoplePrenatal Exposure Delayed EffectsDietMaternalNutrientOsteoporosisPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID27544304
OpenAlexW2514408810

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.