ArticlePublic health nutrition2022
Evaluation of iodine nutritional status during pregnancy by estimated 24-h urinary iodine excretion: population variation range and individual accuracy.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Urinary iodine levels and thyroid disorder prevalence in the adult population of China: a large-scale population-based cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The predictive value of the urinary iodine-to-creatine ratio in spot samples for the estimation of 24-hour urinary iodine excretion in adult non-pregnant women.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Observational
- Iodine nutritional status and its associations with thyroid function of pregnant women and neonatal TSH.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
- Iodine and Thyroid Maternal and Fetal Metabolism during Pregnancy.Metabolites · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the accuracy of estimated 24-h urinary iodine excretion (24-h UIEest) in assessing iodine nutritional status.
designFasting venous blood, 24-h and spot urine samples were collected during the day. The urinary iodine concentration (UIC) and urinary creatinine concentration (UCrC) were measured, and the urinary iodine-to-creatinine ratio (UI/Cr), 24-h UIEest, and 24-h urinary iodine excretion (24-h UIE) were calculated. At the population level, correlation and consistency between UIC, UI/Cr, 24-h UIEest and 24-h UIE were assessed using correlation analysis and Bland-Altman plots. At the individual level, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to analyse the accuracy of the above indicators for evaluating insufficient and excessive iodine intake. The reference interval of 24-h UIEest was established based on percentile values.
settingIndicator can accurately evaluate individual iodine nutrition during pregnancy remains controversial.
participantsPregnant women (n 788).
resultsUsing 24-h UIE as standard, the correlation coefficients of 24-h UIEest from different periods of the day ranged from 0·409 to 0·531, and the relative average differences ranged from 4·4 % to 10·9 %. For diagnosis of insufficient iodine intake, the area under the ROC curve of 24-h UIEest was 0·754, sensitivity and specificity were 79·6 % and 65·4 %, respectively. For diagnosis of excessive iodine intake, the area of 24-h UIEest was 0·771, sensitivity and specificity were 66·7 % and 82·0 %, respectively. The reference interval of 24-h UIEest was 58·43-597·65 μg.
conclusionsTwenty-four-hour UIEest can better indicate iodine nutritional status at a relatively large sample size in a given population of pregnant women. It can be used for early screening at the individual level to obtain more lead time for pregnant women.
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.