Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28651697›Full record

Trial reportProstaglandins, leukotrienes, and essential fatty acids2017

Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and arachidonic acid (ARA) balance in developmental outcomes.

John Colombo, D Jill Shaddy, Elizabeth H Kerling, Kathleen M Gustafson, Susan E Carlson

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Prostaglandins, leukotrienes, and essential fatty acids, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.7field-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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

John ColomboSchiefelbusch Institute for Life Span Studies/Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA.
D Jill ShaddyDepartment of Dietetics and Nutrition, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA.
Elizabeth H KerlingDepartment of Dietetics and Nutrition, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA.
Kathleen M GustafsonDepartment of Neurology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA.
Susan E CarlsonDepartment of Dietetics and Nutrition, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA. Electronic address: scarlson@kumc.edu.
University of Kansas Medical Center · USLifeSpan Medical Institute · US

Funding

DHA Supplementation and Pregnancy OutcomeR01HD047315 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER · PI CARLSON, SUSAN E, COLOMBO, JOHN A. · 2006 to 2016
$4.9M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD047315
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The DHA Intake and Measurement of Neural Development (DIAMOND) trial represents one of only a few studies of the long-term dose-response effects of LCPUFA-supplemented formula feeding during infancy. The trial contrasted the effects of four formulations: 0.00% docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)/0.00% arachidonic acid (ARA), 0.32% DHA/0.64% ARA, 0.64% DHA/0.64% ARA, and 0.96% DHA/0.64% ARA against a control condition (0.00% DHA/0.00% ARA). The results of this trial have been published elsewhere, and show improved cognitive outcomes for infants fed supplemented formulas, but a common finding among many of the outcomes show a reduction of benefit for the highest DHA dose (i.e., 0.96%DHA/0.64% ARA, that is, a DHA: ARA ratio 1.5:1.0). The current paper gathers and summarizes the evidence for the reduction of benefit at this dose, and in an attempt to account for this reduced benefit, presents for the first time data from infants' red blood cell (RBC) assays taken at 4 and 12 months of age. Those assays indicate that blood DHA levels generally rose with increased DHA supplementation, although those levels tended to plateau as the DHA-supplemented level exceeded 0.64%. Perhaps more importantly, ARA levels showed a strong inverted-U function in response to increased DHA supplementation; indeed, infants assigned to the formula with the highest dose of DHA (and highest DHA/ARA ratio) showed a reduction in blood ARA relative to more intermediate DHA doses. This finding raises the possibility that reduced ARA may be responsible for the reduction in benefit on cognitive outcomes seen at this dose. The findings implicate the DHA/ARA balance as an important variable in the contribution of LCPUFAs to cognitive and behavioral development in infancy.

Indexed as

Infant Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaArachidonic AcidChild DevelopmentDietary SupplementsDocosahexaenoic AcidsFemaleHumansInfantInfant FormulaMaleArachidonic AcidDocosahexaenoic AcidsArachidonic acidDocosahexaenoic acidInfant development

Identifiers

PMID28651697
PMCPMC5819348
OpenAlexW2621167982

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.