ReviewInternational journal of women's health2025
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Multiple Micronutrient Supplementation (MMS) Compared to Iron Folic Acid (IFA) in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review.
Review in International journal of women's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Maternal perspectives on Multiple Micronutrient Supplementation (MMS) in Indonesia: a cross-sectional study of knowledge, attitudes, and acceptance.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Priority Setting in the Transition from Iron-Folic Acid (IFA) to Multiple Micronutrient Supplementation (MMS) for Pregnant Women in Indonesia.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Multiple micronutrient deficiencies might increase the adverse outcome during pregnancy and after birth. Considering the WHO recommendations since 2016 and scientific evidence from previous studies that multiple-micronutrient supplementation (MMS) is more effective than iron folic acid (IFA) in improving pregnant women's health, it is imperative to conduct an economic evaluation to assess the cost-effectiveness of MMS compared with IFA. Methods: We conducted a systematic review from PubMed and Scopus to identify the cost-effectiveness analyses of MMS compared to IFA for pregnant women up to January 2024. Data extraction included specific study characteristics, input parameters, cost elements, cost-effectiveness results, and key drivers of uncertainty. This systematic review adhered to The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Results: After removing 111 duplicates and following the screening process on the title and abstract of 1201 records, resulting in 125 full-text articles assessed for eligibility, a total of 5 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. All included studies were from low- and middle-income countries and demonstrated that MMS compared to IFA for pregnant women is cost-effective and even very cost-effective in some countries. All included studies implemented cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and estimated its cost-effectiveness using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per disability-adjusted life years (DALY) averted. Results suggested that the transition from IFA to MMS was cost-effective. The range of ICER per DALY averted in this study is USD 3.62 to USD 1024, depending on the scenario. Overall, the main determinant influencing cost-effectiveness was the cost of MMS procurement. Conclusion: Our findings highlight that transitioning from IFA to MMS in certain conditions has been proven cost-effective, emphasizing this intervention's economic viability. MMS price and micronutrient deficiency-related disease burden are important determinants in assessing cost-effectiveness. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022319470.
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.