ArticleBMC nutrition2026
Evaluation of dietary iron exposure across iron compounds and fortification levels in Saudi Arabia: simulation modeling study.
Article in BMC nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIron fortification is a key public health policy in Saudi Arabia, intended to improve iron intake and reduce the prevalence of inadequate iron intake. An effective policy design should support improved intake among at-risk groups while avoiding excessive intakes in other groups. This study evaluated the anticipated impact of the current fortification policy by examining its ability to balance nutritional adequacy and safety in the Saudi population.
methodsThis simulation modelling study followed the guidelines of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization to simulate and model the impact of iron fortification. The modeled usual iron intake was determined, and the population segments with the highest and lowest intakes relative to this average were identified for benefit-risk assessment. All fortification scenarios in SFDA.FD 2539:2022 were evaluated to assess iron adequacy in low-intake groups, reduction in inadequacy prevalence, and risk of exceeding UL in high-intake groups.
resultsAt baseline, the modeled mean usual iron intake was 13.0 mg/day for males and 12.0 mg/day for females. Across the simulated fortification scenarios, intake increased, reaching up to 24.3 mg/day in males and 23.6 mg/day in females at the 60-ppm level of fortification. The prevalence of inadequate intake decreased across all scenarios. It declined from 5.99% to 0.2% in males and from 10.56% to 0.3% in females, respectively. Intake above the upper limit (UL) was negligible. It was observed only at 60 ppm, affecting 0.7% of males and 0.4% females. Based on these findings, a fortification level of 30 ppm may achieve population-level adequacy while maintaining a minimal risk of exceeding UL.
conclusionsThe simulation of fortification effects at levels prescribed by current legislation suggests that these levels may reduce inadequate intake. The risk of excess remains minimal, particularly at 30 ppm. This study provides an initial overview of these anticipated impacts.
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.