Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37002655›Full record

SynthesisMaternal & child nutrition2023

Antenatal multiple micronutrient supplements versus iron-folic acid supplements and birth outcomes: Analysis by gestational age assessment method.

Filomena Gomes, Sufia Askari, Robert E Black, Parul Christian, Kathryn G Dewey, Martin N Mwangi, Ziaul Rana, Sarah Reed, Anuraj H Shankar, Emily R Smith and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Maternal & child nutrition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. 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

11 authors at 8 institutions in 6 countries.

Filomena GomesThe New York Academy of Sciences, New York City, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1702-1433
Sufia AskariSight and Life Foundation, Basel, Switzerland.
Robert E BlackJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9926-7984
Parul ChristianJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Kathryn G DeweyDepartment of Nutrition, University of California, Davis, Davis, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4185-3451
Martin N MwangiThe Micronutrient Forum, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8358-4448
Ziaul RanaThe New York Academy of Sciences, New York City, New York, USA.
Sarah ReedThe Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Anuraj H ShankarNuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Emily R SmithMilken Institute School of Public Health, The George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Alison TumilowiczThe Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8955-1479
Gates Foundation · USJohns Hopkins University · USNew York Academy of Sciences · USMicron (United States) · USMilken Institute · USSight and Life · CHUniversity of California, Davis · USUniversity of Mataram · ID

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Meta-analyses consistently have found that antenatal multiple micronutrient supplementation (MMS) compared with iron and folic acid (IFA) alone reduce adverse birth outcomes. In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) placed a conditional recommendation for MMS and requested additional trials using ultrasounds to establish gestational age, because the evidence on low birthweight (LBW), preterm birth and small for gestational age (SGA) was considered inconsistent. We conducted meta-analyses to determine if the effects of MMS on LBW, preterm birth and SGA differed by gestational age assessment method. Using data from the 16 trials in the WHO analyses, we calculated the effect estimates of MMS versus IFA on birth outcomes (generic inverse variance method and random effects model) stratified by method of gestational age assessment: ultrasound, prospective collection of the date of last menstrual period (LMP) and confirmation of pregnancy by urine test and recall of LMP. The effects of MMS versus IFA on birthweight, preterm birth and SGA appeared consistent across subgroups with no evidence of subgroup differences (p > 0.05). When limited to the seven trials that used ultrasound, the beneficial effects of MMS were demonstrated: risk ratios of 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78-0.97) for LBW, 0.90 (95% CI, 0.79-1.03) for preterm birth and 0.9 (95% CI, 0.83-0.99) for SGA. Sensitivity analyses indicated consistency in the results. These results, together with recent analyses demonstrating comparable effects of MMS (vs. IFA) on maternal anaemia outcomes, strengthen the evidence to support a transition from IFA to MMS programmes in low- and middle-income countries.

Indexed as

Premature BirthBirth WeightDietary SupplementsFemaleFolic AcidGestational AgeHumansInfant, NewbornIronMicronutrientsPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeProspective StudiesFolic AcidIronMicronutrientsbirth outcomesgestational age assessmentiron and folic acid supplementsmultiple micronutrient supplementsnutritionpregnancyultrasound

Identifiers

PMID37002655
PMCPMC10262881
OpenAlexW4362454217

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.