ArticleJournal of nutritional science
Iron supplementation during the first trimester of pregnancy after a national change of recommendation: a Danish cross-sectional study.
Article in Journal of nutritional science. 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.
- Low-Dose Prophylactic Oral Iron Supplementation (Ferrous Fumarate, Ferrous Bisglycinate, and Ferrous Sulphate) in Pregnancy Is Not Associated With Clinically Significant Gastrointestinal Complaints: Results From Two Randomized Studies.Journal of pregnancy · 2024Trial
- Optimisation of Micronutrient Supplementation During Pregnancy: Interactions Between Bioactive Compounds, Their Impact on Health, and Regulatory Considerations.Biomolecules · 2026Review
- Inadequate food diversity and food taboo associated with maternal iron deficiency among pregnant women living in slum settlements in Makassar City, Indonesia.Journal of education and health promotion · 2024Article
- Prepregnancy Emergency Department Use and Risks of Severe Maternal and Neonatal Morbidity in Canada.JAMA network open · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2013, the Danish Health Authorities recommended a change in prophylactic iron supplementation to 40-50 mg/d from gestational week 10. Hence, the aims of the present study were (1) to estimate the prevalence of women who follow the Danish recommendation on iron supplementation during the last 3 weeks of the first trimester of pregnancy and (2) to identify potential sociodemographic, reproductive and health-related pre-pregnancy predictors for iron supplementation during the first trimester. We conducted a cross-sectional study with data from the hospital-based Copenhagen Pregnancy Cohort. Characteristics were analysed by descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the associations between predictors and iron supplementation during the last 3 weeks of the first trimester. The study population consisted of 23 533 pregnant women attending antenatal care at Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet from October 2013 to May 2019. The prevalence of iron supplementation according to recommendations was 49⋅1 %. The pre-pregnancy factors of ≥40 years of age, the educational level below a higher degree and a vegetarian or vegan diet were identified as predictors for iron supplementation during the first trimester of pregnancy. Approximately half of the women were supplemented with the recommended dose of iron during the first trimester of pregnancy. We identified pre-pregnancy predictors associated with iron supplementation. Interventions that target women of reproductive age are needed. An enhanced focus on iron supplementation during pregnancy should be incorporated in pre-pregnancy and interpregnancy counselling.
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.