ReviewNutrients2023
Folate Supplementation in Women with Pre-Existing Diabetes.
Review in Nutrients, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does previous pregnancy experience improve folic acid supplementation uptake? A systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2026Pooled it
- [Management of hyperglycemia in pregnancy (Update 2026)].Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2026Review
- Prediabetes, diabetes, and folate status among United States women of reproductive age: NHANES 2011-March 2020.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Article
- Fluorescence spectroscopy combined with molecular docking to study the interaction between folic acid derivatives from wheat grains and bovine trypsin.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Biological, dietetic and pharmacological properties of vitamin BNPJ science of food · 2025Review
- Review
- Association between MTHFR polymorphisms and vitamin D status in infertile women: a mediation analysis.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Folate supplementation in the periconceptual period is the standard of care for the prevention of neural tube defects. To support dietary folate intake, some countries have introduced mandatory folic acid fortification of food products. Robust evidence supports the additional use of a low-dose folic acid supplement (0.4 mg/day) in all women from 2-3 months preconception until the end of the 12th week of gestation. For women with pre-existing diabetes, high-dose folic acid supplementation (5 mg/day) is recommended in some, but not all international guidelines. The recommendation is made based on consensus opinion and reflects the increased risk of neural tube defects in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. However, there is limited evidence to clarify the high-risk groups that benefit from high-dose folic acid versus those that do not. There are also some data to suggest that high-dose folic acid may be harmful to mothers and offspring, although this issue remains controversial. This narrative review explores the evidence that supports the recommendation for women with pre-existing diabetes to take high-dose folic acid in the periconceptual period. It explores the potential benefits of high-dose supplemental folate beyond the prevention of neural tube defects, and also the potential adverse impacts of high-dose folate use. These topics are considered with a specific focus on the issues that are pertinent to women with pre-existing diabetes. Based on the available evidence, a pragmatic approach to the use of folic acid supplements in women with pre-existing diabetes during the periconception period is suggested. The need for comprehensive preconception care that optimises glycaemic control and addresses other modifiable risk factors before pregnancy is emphasized.
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.