Effect of prenatal multiple micronutrient supplementation compared with iron and folic acid supplementation on size at birth and subsequent growth through 24 mo of age: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prenatal multiple micronutrient supplementation (MMS), in comparison to iron and folic acid supplementation (IFA), improves pregnancy outcomes, but less is known about their effect on infant growth. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review of trials comparing maternal MMS to IFA and assessed the effect on infants' anthropometric outcomes at birth, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 mo of age. METHODS: We included trials from a Cochrane review and new studies identified through systematic literature searches in 3 databases. We calculated the pooled effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a generic inverse variance method, with fixed (primary analysis) and random-effects, and assessed subgroup differences. RESULTS: The 19 included trials showed that MMS, compared to IFA, led to significantly greater length and weight from birth to 6 mo, head circumference (HC) from birth to 12 mo, and mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) through 3 mo. Infants born to pregnant women consuming MMS were longer at birth (mean difference: 0.05 cm; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.08 cm) and had higher length-for-age z-score at birth (0.09; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.12), 3 mo (0.09; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.12), and 6 mo (0.04; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.07) of age but not thereafter. MMS resulted in significantly higher weight-for-age z-score and HC-for-age z-score until 6 mo and higher weight-for-length z-score and MUAC-for-age z-score until 3 mo. MMS reduced risk of stunting (risk ratio [RR]: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.82, 0.91), underweight (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.81, 0.90), small HC (RR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.79, 0.90), and low MUAC (RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.82, 0.99) at 3 mo and wasting (RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.85, 0.96) at birth. For some outcomes, effects were greater when MMS was continued postpartum and in settings with higher prevalence of low birthweight. CONCLUSIONS: Prenatal MMS improves size at birth and subsequent infant growth through 6 mo of age but not thereafter. These results strengthen the evidence on MMS benefits beyond birth outcomes. This study was registered in PROSPERO as CRD42024551864.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".