ArticleKorean journal of women health nursing2023
Influence of folic acid knowledge on effective folic acid intake in Chinese pregnant women: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Korean journal of women health nursing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does previous pregnancy experience improve folic acid supplementation uptake? A systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2026Pooled it
- Awareness and Use of Folic Acid Among Pregnant Women in Western Ukraine: A Pilot Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Maternal red blood cell folate and periconceptional folic acid supplementation are associated with neonatal brain maturation: a retrospective EEG-MRI study with term-equivalent imaging.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2026Article
- Health literacy of pregnant women and its association with methyl-group donor intake and folic acid supplementation: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to investigate the current status of effective folic acid intake and the level of folic acid knowledge of Chinese pregnant women and to analyze the relationship between effective folic acid intake and folic acid knowledge.
methodsFrom November 2021 to May 2022, 140 pregnant women at Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital in the Chinese province of Shandong, answered questions about their general characteristics, folic acid intake, and folic acid knowledge. The data were analyzed using the t-test, chi-square test, and logistic regression analysis, and were presented with frequency with percentage or mean±standard deviation.
resultsOnly 16.4% of the pregnant women (n=23) took folic acid effectively, using the following four criteria. Of all pregnant women who took folic acid, 72.2% took folic acid starting 1 month before pregnancy, 70.8% took folic acid up to 3 months after pregnancy, 36.8% took 400 μg every time, and 78.6% took folic acid more than 24 days every month. The score for folic acid knowledge was relatively high (5.61±2.18 on a scale of 0-9). A higher folic acid knowledge score correlated with more effective folic acid intake (t=4.10, p<.001).
conclusionOur study shows that the current recommendations to prevent neural tube defects through effective folic acid intake supplementation are not being fully implemented in China. Furthermore, folic acid knowledge was positively correlated with the effectiveness of its intake. Future education related to effective folic acid intake should emphasize the four methods of effective folic acid intake, especially regarding the recommended dose of 400 μg every time.
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.