Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31858145›Full record

Trial reportThe American journal of clinical nutrition2020

Population RBC folate concentrations can be accurately estimated from measured whole blood folate, measured hemoglobin, and predicted serum folate-cross-sectional data from the NHANES 1988-2010.

Ming Zhang, Maya R Sternberg, Lorraine F Yeung, Christine M Pfeiffer

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 76% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Ming ZhangNational Center for Environmental Health, CDC, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Maya R SternbergNational Center for Environmental Health, CDC, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Lorraine F YeungNational Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, CDC, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Christine M PfeifferNational Center for Environmental Health, CDC, Atlanta, GA, USA.
National Center for Environmental Health · USNational Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRBC folate (RBF) is an indicator of folate status and risk of neural-tube defects. It is calculated from whole blood folate (WBF), serum folate (SFOL), and hematocrit (Hct). SFOL and/or Hct are sometimes unavailable; hemoglobin (Hb) is generally available in surveys.

objectivesWe assessed the ability of different RBF approximations to generate population data in women aged 12-49 y.

methodsUsing SFOL, RBF, Hct, Hb, and mean corpuscular Hb content (MCHC) from prefortification (1988-1994) and postfortification (1999-2006, 2007-2010) NHANES we applied 6 approaches: #1) assume SFOL = 0; #2) impute SFOL (population median); #3) impute Hct (population median); #4) estimate Hct (Hb/MCHC); #5) assume SFOL = 0 and estimate Hct; and #6) predict SFOL (from WBF) and estimate Hct. For each approach, we calculated the paired percentage difference to the "true" RBF and estimated various statistics.

resultsFor 2007-2010 (unweighted data), the median relative difference from "true" RBF was lowest for approaches #2 (-0.74%), #4 (-0.96%), and #6 (-1.15%), intermediate for #3 (-3.36%), and highest for #5 (4.96%) and #1 (5.78%). The 95% agreement limits were smallest for approach #1 (2.33%, 13.0%) and largest for #3 (-20.8%, 11.3%). Approach #2 showed concentration-dependence (negative compared with positive differences at low compared with high RBF). Using weighted data, we found similar patterns across approaches for mean relative differences by demographic subgroup for all 3 time periods.

conclusionsWe obtained the best agreement between estimated and "true" RBF when we predicted SFOL using a regression equation obtained from a subset of samples (approach #6). Alternatively, the consistent overestimation of RBF when assuming SFOL = 0 (∼6%) could be addressed by adjusting the data (approach #5). Similar observations for pre- and postfortification periods suggest applicability to low and high folate status situations, but should be confirmed elsewhere. To estimate RBF, at least WBF and Hb are needed.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultChildCross-Sectional StudiesErythrocytesFemaleFolic AcidHemoglobinsHumansMaleMiddle AgedNutrition SurveysYoung AdultFolic AcidHemoglobinshematocritlow-resource countriesmicrobiologic assayNHANESradioassay

Identifiers

PMID31858145
PMCPMC10059072
OpenAlexW2995838011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.