Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28534456›Full record

SynthesisPublic health nutrition2017

Effects of folic acid fortification on orofacial clefts prevalence: a meta-analysis.

Natalia Millacura, Rosa Pardo, Lucia Cifuentes, José Suazo

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Food Security Impacts Health of Children With Orofacial Clefts: An 8-Year Review of the Global Burden of Disease Study.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Disruption of DNA methylation-mediated cranial neural crest proliferation and differentiation causes orofacial clefts in mice.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. The Evaluation ofChildren (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    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

4 authors.

Natalia Millacura1Instituto de Investigación en Ciencias Odontológicas, Facultad de Odontología,Universidad de Chile,Sergio Livingstone #943,Santiago,Chile.
Rosa Pardo2Sección de Genética,Hospital Clínico Universidad de Chile,Santiago,Chile.
Lucia Cifuentes5Programa de Genética Humana,Instituto de Ciencias Biomédicas, Facultad de Medicina,Universidad de Chile,Santiago,Chile.
José Suazo1Instituto de Investigación en Ciencias Odontológicas, Facultad de Odontología,Universidad de Chile,Sergio Livingstone #943,Santiago,Chile.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveOrofacial clefts (OFC) are the most prevalent craniofacial birth defect. Folic acid (FA) supplementation has been demonstrated as an effective intervention to reduce risk of OFC occurrence. However, the effect of mandatory FA fortification of wheat and/or maize flour on OFC prevalence has shown controversial results among countries adopting this policy. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis to synthesize the available evidence evaluating the global impact of this mandatory policy on OFC occurrence.

designLiterature search in conventional and grey medical/scientific databases showed fifteen studies considering OFC prevalence in pre- and post-fortification periods with FA. The effect of this policy was evaluated by computing relative risk (RR) and separating samples into total OFC, non-syndromic forms, cleft lip with or without cleft palate (CL/P) and cleft palate only (CPO).

resultsWe found a significant effect of FA fortification only on non-syndromic CL/P (RR=0·88; 95 % CI 0·81, 0·96), whereas neutral effects were detected for total OFC (syndromic plus non-syndromic) and CPO.

conclusionsOur results may reflect the different aetiology of syndromic OFC with respect to non-syndromic forms and the CL/P related to CPO. Although the number of non-syndromic CL/P samples was lower than that for total OFC, the absence of both between-study heterogeneity and publication bias leads us to conclude that FA fortification may have beneficial effects on non-syndromic CL/P.

Indexed as

Food, FortifiedCleft LipCleft PalateFolic AcidHumansPrevalenceFolic AcidFolic acid fortificationMeta-analysisOrofacial clefts

Identifiers

PMID28534456
PMCPMC10262269

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.