ArticleScience advances2021
Limited data exist to inform our basic understanding of micronutrient requirements in pregnancy.
Article in Science advances, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans in Pregnancy: Adherence Shortfalls and Associations with Gestational Weight Gain.The Journal of nutrition · 2026Article
- Article
- Use of multiple micronutrient supplementation integrated into routine antenatal care: A discussion of research priorities.Maternal & child nutrition · 2025Article
- Maternal Vitamin B12 in Pregnancy and Placental Development.Journal of nutrition and metabolism · 2024Review
- Single-blinded, stratified, dose ranging trial to assess pharmacokinetics and identify optimal dose of vitamin B12 in pregnancy in Tanzania.Gates open research · 2024Article
- Optimizing Maternal Nutrition: The Importance of a Tailored Approach.Current developments in nutrition · 2022Review
- Differences and Interactions in Placental Manganese and Iron Transfer across an In Vitro Model of Human Villous Trophoblasts.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Women and pregnant people have historically been underrepresented in research; this may extend to the basic research informing nutrient reference values, such as the United States’ and Canada’s Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs). After screening the DRI reports for 23 micronutrients, we extracted metadata from 704 studies. Women were excluded in 23% of studies, and they accounted for a smaller proportion of the sample size (29%). Pregnant or lactating people were included in 17% of the studies. Studies that used rigorous design elements, such as controlled feeding and stable isotope studies, were the most likely to include men only. The majority of studies (>90%) did not report race and ethnicity. Although nutrient reference values are intended for use in the general population, we find that the basic science informing these values may not be generalizable. We call urgently upon funders and researchers to address fundamental gaps in knowledge with high-quality research.
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.