Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30609688›Full record

SynthesisNutrients2019

Systematic Review and Bayesian Meta-analysis of the Dose-response Relationship between Folic Acid Intake and Changes in Blood Folate Concentrations.

Krista S Crider, Owen Devine, Yan Ping Qi, Lorraine F Yeung, Ahlia Sekkarie, Ibrahim Zaganjor, Eugene Wong, Charles E Rose, Robert J Berry

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nutrients, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. International journal of molecular medicine · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Folic acid supplementation on congenital heart disease and its dual character.Current research in pharmacology and drug discovery · 2025
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Association betweenAnnals of translational medicine · 2019
    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

9 authors.

Krista S CriderCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Division of Congenital and Developmental Disorders, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA. kcrider@cdc.gov.
Owen DevineCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Division of Congenital and Developmental Disorders, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA. owendevine2015@outlook.com.
Yan Ping QiCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Division of Congenital and Developmental Disorders, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA. irv7@cdc.gov.
Lorraine F YeungCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Division of Congenital and Developmental Disorders, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA. lcy5@cdc.gov.ORCID 0000-0002-1553-5935
Ahlia SekkarieOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA. ahlia.sekkarie@emory.edu.
Ibrahim ZaganjorOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA. Ibrahim.Zaganjor@gmail.com.
Eugene WongOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA. lgn8@cdc.gov.
Charles E RoseCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Division of Congenital and Developmental Disorders, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA. cvr7@cdc.gov.
Robert J BerryCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Division of Congenital and Developmental Disorders, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA. rjb1@cdc.gov.ORCID 0000-0002-7162-5046

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The threshold for population-level optimal red blood cell (RBC) folate concentration among women of reproductive age for the prevention of neural tube defects has been estimated at 906 nmol/L; however, the dose-response relationship between folic acid intake and blood folate concentrations is uncharacterized. To estimate the magnitude of blood folate concentration increase in response to specific dosages of folic acid under steady-state conditions (as could be achieved with food fortification), a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis was conducted. Of the 14,002 records we identified, 533 were selected for full-text review, and data were extracted from 108 articles. The steady-state concentrations (homeostasis) of both serum/plasma and RBC folate concentrations were estimated using a Bayesian meta-analytic approach and one-compartment physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models. RBC folate concentrations increased 1.78 fold (95% credible interval (CI): 1.66, 1.93) from baseline to steady-state at 375⁻570 µg folic acid/day, and it took a median of 36 weeks of folic acid intake (95% CI: 27, 52) to achieve steady-state RBC folate concentrations. Based on regression analysis, we estimate that serum/plasma folate concentrations increased 11.6% (95% CI: 8.4, 14.9) for every 100 µg/day folic acid intake. These results will help programs plan and monitor folic acid fortification programs.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremDose-Response Relationship, DrugFolic AcidFood, FortifiedHumansNutritional StatusFolic Acidfolic acidfortificationplasma folatepublic healthred blood cell folateserum folatesupplementation

Identifiers

PMID30609688
PMCPMC6356991

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.