Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33805305›Full record

ReviewNutrients2021

Food Fortification: The Advantages, Disadvantages and Lessons from

Rebecca Olson, Breda Gavin-Smith, Chiara Ferraboschi, Klaus Kraemer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nutrients, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 81 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
81citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

81 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Improving Female Health at Various Life Stages:Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Edible Insect Consumption for Human and Planetary Health: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. A Combination of Inulin and Long-Chain Fructooligosaccharides EnhancesJournal of agricultural and food chemistry · 2026
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

21 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

4 authors.

Rebecca OlsonSight and Life, P.O. Box 2116, 4002 Basel, Switzerland.
Breda Gavin-SmithSight and Life, P.O. Box 2116, 4002 Basel, Switzerland.
Chiara FerraboschiSight and Life, P.O. Box 2116, 4002 Basel, Switzerland.
Klaus KraemerSight and Life, P.O. Box 2116, 4002 Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deficiencies in one or more micronutrients such as iron, zinc, and vitamin A are widespread in low- and middle-income countries and compromise the physical and cognitive capacity of millions of people. Food fortification is a cost-effective strategy with demonstrated health, economic and social benefits. Despite ongoing debates globally and in some countries regarding the performance and safety of food fortification, the practice offers significant benefits across each of the main vehicles for food fortification (large-scale food fortification, biofortification and point-of-use or home fortification) ranging from reducing the prevalence of nutritional deficiencies and economic benefits to societies and economies. Using

Indexed as

Developing CountriesFood, FortifiedNutrition PolicyHumansMicronutrientsMicronutrientsbiofortificationfortificationlarge-scale food fortificationmicronutrient deficienciesmicronutrientsmicronutrient supplementspartnershipspoint-of-use fortification

Identifiers

PMID33805305
PMCPMC8066912

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.