ReviewJRSM open2021
Folates, folic acid and preconception care - a review.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Couple-based preconception care as a gender-responsive strategy for improving health and well-being: a systematic review.Reproductive health · 2026Pooled it
- Effect of a digital dietary intervention on diet quality in young adults in Norway - The PREPARED randomised controlled trial.BMC nutrition · 2026Article
- Article
- Biological, dietetic and pharmacological properties of vitamin BNPJ science of food · 2025Review
- Before Is Better: Innovative Multidisciplinary Preconception Care in Different Clinical Contexts.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Active Folate Versus Folic Acid: The Role of 5-MTHF (Methylfolate) in Human Health.Integrative medicine (Encinitas, Calif.) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.