ReviewFood & nutrition research2023
Intake of vitamin B12 in relation to vitamin B12 status in groups susceptible to deficiency: a systematic review.
Review in Food & nutrition research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Protective Effect of B1 and B12 Vitamins on Post-Thaw Sperm Quality Parameters and Seminal Plasma Antioxidant Status in Rams.Veterinary medicine and science · 2025Article
- Evaluation of homocysteine, folate, vitamin B12, and vitamin D levels in pregnant women with recurrent vaginitis.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2025Article
- Exploring Vitamin B12 Supplementation in the Vegan Population: A Scoping Review of the Evidence.Nutrients · 2024Article
- Infant feeding-a scoping review for Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2023.Food & nutrition research · 2024Article
- Vitamin BFood & nutrition research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically review the evidence for whether habitual or different levels of experimental intake of vitamin B12 from diet and supplements is sufficient to ensure adequate B12 status in groups most susceptible to vitamin B12 deficiency. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Scopus up to 21 May 2021, for intervention studies, prospective cohort studies and case-control studies assessing B12 intake from diet and/or supplements in relation to B12 status (s/p-B12, holotranscobalamin, methylmalonic acid, homocysteine or breastmilk B12). Cross-sectional studies were eligible for studies conducted during pregnancy and lactation. Included populations were children (0-18 years), young adults (18-35 years), pregnant or lactating women, older adults (≥65 years) and vegans or vegetarians. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted by two assessors independently. The evidence was synthesized qualitatively and classified according to the World Cancer Research Fund. Results: The searches yielded 4855 articles of which 89 were assessed in full text and 18 included. Three studies were conducted during pregnancy and three during lactation or infancy - all observational. Eight studies were conducted among older adults; most were interventions among B12-deficient participants. Four studies were eligible for vegetarian and vegans, all interventions. The strength of evidence that habitual B12 intake or an intake in line with the current Nordic recommended intake (RI) is sufficient to ensure adequate status was considered Conclusion: Evidence is insufficient to assess if or which level of B12 intake is sufficient to maintain adequate status for all included populations. Population-based cohort studies and low-to-moderate dose interventions that address this question are highly warranted.
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.