Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34035929›Full record

ReviewJRSM open2021

Folates, folic acid and preconception care - a review.

Simon H House, John Aa Nichols, Sarah Rae

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JRSM open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Simon H HouseRoyal Society of Medicine, London W1G 0AE, UK.
John Aa NicholsDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6344-2346
Sarah RaeBedford Hospital NHS Trust, Bedfordshire MK42 9DJ, UK.
Bedford Hospital NHS Trust · GBRoyal Society of Medicine · GBUniversity of Surrey · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The link between folate deficiency and congenital spina bifida defects was first suggested in the 1960s. Although the prevention of these defects by preconception folic acid supplementation was confirmed in a large multi-centre controlled trial in 1991, its subsequent implementation as health education advice has made very little difference. North America's policy of folic acid fortification of flour and bread has had a beneficial impact. No European country has implemented fortification due to concern over possible adverse effects on older subjects, but a recent review shows these to be largely hypothetical and far outweighed by beneficial effects. Recent research by Menezo et al. has, however, shown that folic acid is ineffective for some women with severe fertility problems including recurrent miscarriage and failed in vitro fertilisation. There is a genetically determined bottleneck (677TT) in their folate metabolism that can be successfully overridden by going straight to the next step in the metabolic pathway and taking 5-methylytetrahydrofolate, as a preconception supplement. Menezo suggests that all women with fertility problems should be tested for 677TT. If fortification of flour and bread is to be implemented in the UK, there should be monitoring for possible adverse effects including the incidence of colorectal cancers and cognitive decline. In conclusion, whilst there are concerns that fortification could have a detrimental effect on these conditions, there is sound evidence that it would have much greater beneficial effects.

Indexed as

brain stemcerebellumclinicalclinical geneticsgeneticsneurologynutrition and metabolismobstetrics and gynaecologyother nutrition and metabolismreproductive medicine

Identifiers

PMID34035929
PMCPMC8127769
OpenAlexW3162592213

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.