Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28571654›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics2017

Is Nutrient Content and Other Label Information for Prescription Prenatal Supplements Different from Nonprescription Products?

Leila G Saldanha, Johanna T Dwyer, Karen W Andrews, LaVerne L Brown, Rebecca B Costello, Abby G Ershow, Pavel A Gusev, Constance J Hardy, Pamela R Pehrsson

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Maternal Dietary Factors and the Risk of Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Systematic Review of Existing Evidence.Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. A critical evaluation of prenatal supplements: Are they meeting the mark?Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Leila G Saldanha
Johanna T Dwyer
Karen W Andrews
LaVerne L Brown
Rebecca B Costello
Abby G Ershow
Pavel A Gusev
Constance J Hardy
Pamela R Pehrsson
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition · USOffice of Dietary Supplements · USAgricultural Research Service · USNational Institutes of Health · US

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 OD999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrenatal supplements are often recommended to pregnant women to help meet their nutrient needs. Many products are available, making it difficult to choose a suitable supplement because little is known about their labeling and contents to evaluate their appropriateness.

objectiveTo determine differences between prescription and nonprescription prenatal supplements available in the United States regarding declared nutrient and nonnutrient ingredients and the presence of dosing and safety-related information.

designUsing two publicly available databases with information about prenatal supplement products, information from prescription and nonprescription product labels were extracted and evaluated. For the 82 prescription and 132 nonprescription products, declared label amounts of seven vitamins and minerals, docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), the presence of other nonnutrient components, and the presence of key safety and informational elements as identified in two Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG)'s 2003 reports were compiled and compared.

resultsCompared with nonprescription products, prescription products contained significantly fewer vitamins (9±0.2 vs 11±0.3; P≤0.05) and minerals (4±0.1 vs 8±0.3; P≤0.05). Declared amounts of folic acid were higher in prescription products, whereas vitamin A, vitamin D, iodine, and calcium were higher in the nonprescription products. Amounts of iron, zinc, and DHA were similar. Virtually all products contained levels of one or more nutrients that exceeded the Recommended Dietary Allowances for pregnant and/or lactating women. Product type also influenced ingredients added. Fewer prescription products contained botanical ingredients (6% prescription vs 33% nonprescription) and probiotics (2% prescription vs 8% nonprescription). Only prescription products contained the stool softener docusate sodium.

conclusionsOur analysis of prenatal supplements indicates that prescription and nonprescription supplements differ in terms of declared composition and nutrient strength, but have labels that are similarly sparse regarding aspects of use such as dosing information.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualDietary SupplementsDrug LabelingFemaleFood LabelingHumansNonprescription DrugsNutritive ValuePregnancyPrenatal CarePrenatal Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaPrescription DrugsRecommended Dietary AllowancesUnited StatesNonprescription DrugsPrescription DrugsLabelingNonprescriptionNutrientsPrenatal supplementsPrescription

Identifiers

PMID28571654
PMCPMC5573647
OpenAlexW2618581919

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.