ArticleNutrition journal2018
In utero exposure to extra vitamin D from food fortification and the risk of subsequent development of gestational diabetes: the D-tect study.
Article in Nutrition journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03330301 (D-tecting Disease - From Exposure to Vitamin D During Critical Periods of Life), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
D-tecting Disease - From Exposure to Vitamin D During Critical Periods of Life
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Integrating Endocrine, Genomic, and Extra-Skeletal Benefits of Vitamin D into National and Regional Clinical Guidelines.Nutrients · 2024Review
- Assessing Health Consequences of Vitamin D Fortification Utilizing a Societal Experiment Design: Methodological Lessons Learned from the D-Tect Project.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- The correlation between neonatal vitamin D levels and the risk of childhood asthma attacks.Translational pediatrics · 2021Article
- Neonatal Vitamin D Status and Risk of Asthma in Childhood: Results from the D-Tect Study.Nutrients · 2020Article
- A Critical Appraisal of Strategies to Optimize Vitamin D Status in Germany, a Population with a Western Diet.Nutrients · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe primary aim of this study was to assess whether exposure during fetal life to extra vitamin D from food fortification was associated with a reduction in the risk of subsequently developing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Furthermore, we examined whether the effect of the vitamin D from fortification differed by women's season of birth.
methodsThis semi-ecological study is based on the cancellation in 1985 of the mandatory policy to fortify margarine with vitamin D in Denmark, with inclusion of entire national adjacent birth cohorts either exposed or unexposed to extra vitamin D in utero. The identification of GDM cases later in life among both exposure groups was based on the Danish national health registers. Logistic regression analyses generating odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were performed.
resultsWomen who were prenatally exposed to the extra vitamin D from fortification tended to have a lower risk of subsequently developing GDM than unexposed women (OR 0.87, 95%CI 0.74,1.02, P = 0.08). When analyses were stratified by women's season of birth, exposed women born in spring had a lower risk of developing GDM compared to unexposed subjects (OR 0.68, 95%CI 0.50,0.94, p = 0.02).
conclusionThis study suggests that prenatal exposure to extra vitamin D from mandatory fortification may lower the risk of developing gestational diabetes among spring-born women.
trial registrationThis study is part of the D-tect project, which is registered on clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03330301 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.