Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39125384›Full record

ArticleNutrients2024

Bibliometric Analysis and a Call for Increased Rigor in Citing Scientific Literature: Folic Acid Fortification and Neural Tube Defect Risk as an Example.

Brynne Boeck, Cara J Westmark

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrients, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

2 authors.

Brynne BoeckDepartment of Neurology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
Cara J WestmarkDepartment of Neurology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3919-3279

Funding

United States Department of Agriculture 2018-67001-28266
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The health benefits of vitamin B9 (folate) are well documented, particularly in regard to neural tube defects during pregnancy; however, much remains to be learned regarding the health effects and risks of consuming folic acid supplements and foods fortified with folic acid. In 2020, our laboratory conducted a population-based analysis of the Food Fortification Initiative (FFI) dataset to determine the strength of the evidence regarding the prevalence of neural tube defects (NTD) at the national level in response to mandatory fortification of cereal grains with folic acid. We found a very weak correlation between the prevalence of NTDs and the level of folic acid fortification irrespective of the cereal grain fortified (wheat, maize, or rice). We found a strong linear relationship between reduced NTDs and higher socioeconomic status (SES). Our paper incited a debate on the proper statistics to employ for population-level data. Subsequently, there has been a large number of erroneous citations to our original work. The objective here was to conduct a bibliometric analysis to quantitate the accuracy of citations to Murphy and Westmark's publication entitled, "Folic Acid Fortification and Neural Tube Defect Risk: Analysis of the Food Fortification Initiative Dataset". We found a 70% inaccuracy rate. These findings highlight the dire need for increased rigor in citing scientific literature, particularly in regard to biomedical research that directly impacts public health policy.

Indexed as

BibliometricsFolic AcidFood, FortifiedNeural Tube DefectsDietary SupplementsEdible GrainFemaleHumansPregnancyPrevalenceRisk FactorsFolic Acidbibliometricsfolatefolic acidfood fortificationneural tube defectsrigor and reproducibility

Identifiers

PMID39125384
PMCPMC11313885

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.