Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27869705›Full record

ReviewNutrients2016

The Combined Application of the Caco-2 Cell Bioassay Coupled with In Vivo (Gallus gallus) Feeding Trial Represents an Effective Approach to Predicting Fe Bioavailability in Humans.

Elad Tako, Haim Bar, Raymond P Glahn

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nutrients, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Saffron (Nutrients · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Low Phytate Peas (Nutrients · 2020
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Iron- and Zinc-Fortified Lentil (Frontiers in nutrition · 2020
    Article
  13. An In Vivo (Nutrients · 2019
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

3 authors.

Elad TakoUSDA-ARS Robert Holley Center for Agriculture and Health, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA. et79@cornell.edu.
Haim BarDepartment of Statistics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-4120, USA. haim.bar@uconn.edu.
Raymond P GlahnUSDA-ARS Robert Holley Center for Agriculture and Health, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA. rpg3@cornell.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research methods that predict Fe bioavailability for humans can be extremely useful in evaluating food fortification strategies, developing Fe-biofortified enhanced staple food crops and assessing the Fe bioavailability of meal plans that include such crops. In this review, research from four recent poultry (

Indexed as

Animal FeedBiofortificationBiological AssayCrops, AgriculturalFood, FortifiedNutritional StatusNutritive ValueAnimalsBiological AvailabilityBiomarkersCaco-2 CellsChickensDeficiency DiseasesHumansIronIron DeficienciesBiomarkersIronbeansbioavailabilitybiofortificationCaco-2 bioassayGallus gallusironpearl milletscreening tools

Identifiers

PMID27869705
PMCPMC5133116

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.