Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31149713›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of nutrition2019

The Chemical Forms of Iron in Commercial Prenatal Supplements Are Not Always the Same as Those Tested in Clinical Trials.

Leila G Saldanha, Johanna T Dwyer, Karen W Andrews, LaVerne L Brown

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Iron and Pregnancy.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Recovery after surgery: do not forget to check iron status before.International journal of women's health · 2019
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Leila G SaldanhaOffice of Dietary Supplements, NIH, Bethesda, MD.
Johanna T DwyerOffice of Dietary Supplements, NIH, Bethesda, MD.
Karen W AndrewsNutrient Data Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD.
LaVerne L BrownOffice of Dietary Supplements, NIH, Bethesda, MD.
Office of Dietary Supplements · USAgricultural Research Service · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Biological AvailabilityClinical Trials as TopicDietary SupplementsFemaleFerrous CompoundsHumansIronIron, DietaryPregnancyPrenatal CarePrenatal Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaSafetyFerrous Compoundsferrous fumarateferrous sulfateIronIron, Dietaryclinical trialsiron compoundsnonprescription prenatal supplementspregnancyprenatalprescription prenatal supplementssupplemental ironsupplements

Identifiers

PMID31149713
PMCPMC6698632
OpenAlexW2940903000

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.