Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29793357›Full record

ReviewFood and nutrition bulletin2018

Large-Scale Food Fortification and Biofortification in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Review of Programs, Trends, Challenges, and Evidence Gaps.

Saskia J M Osendarp, Homero Martinez, Greg S Garrett, Lynnette M Neufeld, Luz Maria De-Regil, Marieke Vossenaar, Ian Darnton-Hill

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Food and nutrition bulletin, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 97 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

97 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 214 citations in OpenAlex.

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

37 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.

Saskia J M Osendarp1 Osendarp Nutrition, Berkel & Rodenrijs, the Netherlands.
Homero Martinez2 Micronutrient Forum, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1435-0306
Greg S Garrett4 Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), Geneva, Switzerland.
Lynnette M Neufeld4 Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), Geneva, Switzerland.
Luz Maria De-Regil3 Nutrition International, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Marieke Vossenaar2 Micronutrient Forum, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Ian Darnton-Hill5 Institute of Obesity, Nutrition and Exercise, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Nutrition International · CAGlobal Alliance for Improved Nutrition · CHKoppert (Netherlands) · NLTufts University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFood fortification and biofortification are well-established strategies to address micronutrient deficiencies in vulnerable populations. However, the effectiveness of fortification programs is not only determined by the biological efficacy of the fortified foods but also by effective and sustainable implementation, which requires continual monitoring, quality assurance and control, and corrective measures to ensure high compliance.

objectiveTo provide an overview of efficacy, effectiveness, economics of food fortification and biofortification, and status of and challenges faced by large-scale food fortification programs in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC).

methodsA literature review of PubMed publications in English from 2000 to 2017, as well as gray literature, targeting nongovernmental organizations whose work focuses on this topic, complemented by national reports and a "snowball" process of citation searching. The article describes remaining technical challenges, barriers, and evidence gap and prioritizes recommendations and next steps to further accelerate progress and potential of impact.

resultsThe review identifies and highlights essential components of successful programs. It also points out issues that determine poor program performance, including lack of adequate monitoring and enforcement and poor compliance with standards by industry.

conclusionsIn the last 17 years, large-scale food fortification initiatives have been reaching increasingly larger segments of populations in LMIC. Large-scale food fortification and biofortification should be part of other nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive efforts to prevent and control micronutrient deficiencies. There are remaining technical and food system challenges, especially in relation to improving coverage and quality of delivery and measuring progress of national programs.

Indexed as

BiofortificationFood, FortifiedGlobal HealthHealth PromotionNutrition PolicyDeveloping CountriesHumansPovertybiofortificationcomplianceeconomicslarge-scale food fortificationlow- and middle-income countries

Identifiers

PMID29793357
PMCPMC7473077
OpenAlexW2804280979

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.