ArticleThe Journal of nutrition2019
The Chemical Forms of Iron in Commercial Prenatal Supplements Are Not Always the Same as Those Tested in Clinical Trials.
Article in The Journal of nutrition, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Human milk unmetabolized folic acid is increased following supplementation with synthetic folic acid as compared to (6S)-5-methyltetrahydrofolic acid.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Article
- Optimisation of Micronutrient Supplementation During Pregnancy: Interactions Between Bioactive Compounds, Their Impact on Health, and Regulatory Considerations.Biomolecules · 2026Review
- Iron and Pregnancy.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025Review
- Disrupted Prenatal Metabolism May Explain the Etiology of Suboptimal Neurodevelopment: A Focus on Phthalates and Micronutrients and their Relationship to Autism Spectrum Disorder.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2024Review
- The Importance and Essentiality of Natural and Synthetic Chelators in Medicine: Increased Prospects for the Effective Treatment of Iron Overload and Iron Deficiency.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Iron Homeostasis During Pregnancy: Maternal, Placental, and Fetal Regulatory Mechanisms.Annual review of nutrition · 2023Review
- Iron-Deficiency Prevalence and Supplementation Practices Among Pregnant Women: A Secondary Data Analysis From a Clinical Trial in Vancouver, Canada.The Journal of nutrition · 2022Article
- Recovery after surgery: do not forget to check iron status before.International journal of women's health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the US, 70% of pregnant women use an iron-containing prenatal supplement product; however, only 2.6% of pregnant women have iron-deficiency anemia and 16.3% are iron deficient. Yet, published data on the amounts and chemical forms of iron used in formulating these products are not available, although they are known to affect bioavailability. This information is especially important in comparing commercially available products with those that were tested in clinical trials. Our examination of nonprescription and prescription iron-containing prenatal supplement products in NIH's Dietary Supplement Label Database (DSLD) and DailyMed found the labeled amount of elemental iron ranged between 9 and 60 mg/serving in 148 nonprescription supplements and between 4.5 and 106 mg/serving in 101 prescription supplements. Ferrous fumarate was the preferred chemical form used in these products. In contrast, ferrous sulfate was the preferred chemical form of iron reported in the clinical trials summarized in a 2015 Cochrane Systematic review assessing the effects of daily oral iron supplements for pregnant women. Ferrous sulfate was not found on any prenatal supplement product label in the DSLD or DailyMed. The chemical forms of products on the market and those tested in clinical trials are dissimilar, and we believe this may have clinical implications. The findings raise several questions. Do outcomes in clinical trials correlate with the benefits and risks that might adhere to iron supplements with different iron formulations? Should the differences in chemical forms, their bioavailability, and safety profiles, be considered in greater depth when evaluating the effect of the various formulations on maternal iron nutriture? Should new clinical trials for pregnant and lactating women in the US use a form of iron not found in prenatal supplements sold in the US or should a more common form be used?
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.