MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Multiple-micronutrient supplementation for women during pregnancy

2015· review· en· W2891570039 on OpenAlexafffund
Batool A Haider, Zulfiqar A Bhutta

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationCentre for Global Health ResearchHospital for Sick Children
FundersHospital for Sick ChildrenDepartment for International DevelopmentUNICEF
KeywordsMicronutrientMedicineObstetricsPregnancyGynecologyEnvironmental healthBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Multiple-micronutrient (MMN) deficiencies often coexist among women of reproductive age in low- to middle-income countries. They are exacerbated in pregnancy due to the increased demands, leading to potentially adverse effects on the mother and developing fetus. Though supplementation with MMNs has been recommended earlier because of the evidence of impact on pregnancy outcomes, a consensus is yet to be reached regarding the replacement of iron and folic acid supplementation with MMNs. Since the last update of this Cochrane review, evidence from a few large trials has recently been made available, the inclusion of which is critical to inform policy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits of oral multiple-micronutrient supplementation during pregnancy on maternal, fetal and infant health outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (11 March 2015) and reference lists of retrieved articles and key reviews. We also contacted experts in the field for additional and ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All prospective randomised controlled trials evaluating MMN supplementation during pregnancy and its effects on the pregnancy outcome were eligible, irrespective of language or the publication status of the trials. We included cluster-randomised trials, but quasi-randomised trials were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen trials (involving 138,538 women) were identified as eligible for inclusion in this review but only 17 trials (involving 137,791 women) contributed data to the review. Fifteen of these 17 trials were carried out in low and middle-income countries and compared MMN supplements with iron and folic acid versus iron with or without folic acid. Two trials carried out in the UK compared MMN with a placebo. MMN with iron and folic acid versus iron, with or without folic acid (15 trials): MMN resulted in a significant decrease in the number of newborn infants identified as low birthweight (LBW) (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.91; high-quality evidence) or small-for-gestational age (SGA) (average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97; moderate-quality evidence), and a reduced rate of stillbirth (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.98; high-quality evidence). No significant differences were shown for other maternal and pregnancy outcomes: preterm births (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.03; high-quality evidence), maternal anaemia in the third trimester (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.10), miscarriage (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01), maternal mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.48), perinatal mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.12; high-quality evidence), neonatal mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.07; high -quality evidence), or risk of delivery via a caesarean section (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.43).A number of prespecified, clinically important outcomes could not be assessed due to insufficient or non-available data. Single trials reported results for: very preterm birth < 34 weeks, macrosomia, side-effects of supplements, nutritional status of children, and congenital anomalies including neural tube defects and neurodevelopmental outcome: Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID) scores. None of these trials reported pre-eclampsia, placental abruption, premature rupture of membranes, cost of supplementation, and maternal well-being or satisfaction.When assessed according to GRADE criteria, the quality of evidence for the review's primary outcomes overall was good. Pooled results for primary outcomes were based on multiple trials with large sample sizes and precise estimates. The following outcomes were graded to be as of high quality: preterm birth, LBW, perinatal mortality, stillbirth and neonatal mortality. The outcome of SGA was graded to be of moderate quality, with evidence downgraded by one for funnel plot asymmetry and potential publication bias.We carried out sensitivity analysis excluding trials with high levels of sample attrition (> 20%); results were consistent with the main analysis. We explored heterogeneity through subgroup analysis by maternal height and body mass index (BMI), timing of supplementation and dose of iron. Subgroup differences were observed for maternal BMI and timing of supplementation for the outcome preterm birth, with significant findings among women with low BMI and with earlier initiation of supplementation in the prenatal period. Subgroup differences were also observed for maternal BMI, maternal height and dose of iron for the outcome SGA, indicating a significant impact among women with higher maternal BMI and height, and with MMN supplement containing 30 mg of iron versus control receiving 60 mg of iron. The findings between subgroups for other primary outcomes were inconclusive. MMN versus placebo (two trials): A single trial in the UK found no clear differences between groups for preterm birth, SGA, LBW or maternal anaemia in the third trimester. A second trial reported the number of women with pre-eclampsia; there was no evidence of a difference between groups. Other outcomes were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the effect of MMN supplements with iron and folic acid in improving birth outcomes. The findings, consistently observed in several systematic evaluations of evidence, provide a strong basis to guide the replacement of iron and folic acid with MMN supplements containing iron and folic acid for pregnant women in developing countries where MMN deficiencies are common among women of reproductive age. Efforts should be focused on the integration of this intervention in maternal nutrition and antenatal care programs in developing countries.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.165
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations122
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207