Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31793249›Full record

SynthesisMaternal & child nutrition2020

Dietary guideline adherence during preconception and pregnancy: A systematic review.

Cherie Caut, Matthew Leach, Amie Steel

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Maternal & child nutrition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
10.4field-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

84 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 149 citations in OpenAlex.

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

24 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Cherie CautOffice of Research, Endeavour College of Natural Health, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6977-2610
Matthew LeachDepartment of Rural Health, Division of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Whyalla, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3133-1913
Amie SteelAustralian Research Centre in Complementary and Integrative Medicine, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6643-9444
Endeavour College of Natural Health · AUUniversity of South Australia · AUUniversity of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine the level of adherence to dietary guidelines among men and women during preconception, and pregnant women, and factors associated with adherence. Searches were conducted in CINAHL, AMED, EMBASE, and Maternity and Infant Care from inception to March 2018. Observational studies assessing the primary outcome (adherence to dietary guidelines and/or nutritional recommendations) and/or secondary outcome (factors associated with adherence) were eligible. Study quality was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-sectional studies. Men or women (aged ≥18 years) who identified as trying/intending to conceive or were pregnant. Eighteen studies were included. The quality of studies was fair (44%) to good (56%). Most studies indicated preconceptual and pregnant women do not meet recommendations for vegetable, cereal grain, or folate intake. Pregnant women did not meet iron or calcium intake requirements in 91% and 55% of included studies, respectively, and also exceeded fat intake recommendations in 55% of included studies. Higher level education was associated with improved guideline adherence in pregnant women, whereas older age and non-smoking status were associated with greater guideline adherence in preconceptual and pregnant women. The findings of this review suggest that preconceptual and pregnant women may not be meeting the minimum requirements stipulated in dietary guidelines and/or nutritional recommendations. This could have potential adverse consequences for pregnancy and birth outcomes and the health of the offspring. Major knowledge gaps identified in this review, which warrant further investigation, are the dietary intakes of men during preconception, and the predictors of guideline adherence.

Indexed as

Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaNutrition PolicyFemaleHumansMalePatient CompliancePreconception CarePregnancyPrenatal Caredietdietary intake assessmentdietary recommendationspreconception nutritionpregnancy and nutritionsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31793249
PMCPMC7083492
OpenAlexW2991712678

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.