ArticleNutrients2025
Comparison of Preconception Diet Scores Across Studies: The PrePARED Consortium.
Article in Nutrients, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPreconception diet and nutritional status are important determinants of reproductive and pregnancy health. As a comprehensive evaluation, this paper describes harmonization of diet data across multiple cohorts including over 50,000 participants and the differences between them. This information may be useful for developing targeted strategies to improve women's diet prior to pregnancy for optimal prenatal health outcomes.
methodsThe Preconception Period Analysis of Risks and Exposures influencing health and Development (PrePARED) consortium incorporates studies covering the preconception period and includes both couples planning pregnancy and studies covering the reproductive period but not focused on pregnancy. We harmonized data on 56,520 participants from seven cohort studies that collected data during the preconception period. We generated data on diet quality according to the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) nutrition checklist to examine diet quality measures across the cohorts and compare estimates of diet quality across studies. Four studies used food frequency questionnaires; one used a study-specific diet history; one used two 24 h dietary recalls; and one used a short series of general diet questions. Positive responses on the six FIGO questions were tallied to calculate a total diet quality score.
resultsCohort samples varied in terms of age; socioeconomic status; race; ethnicity; and geographic region. Across the cohorts, participants met a median of three or four of the FIGO criteria for diet quality; those most commonly met were recommendations for consumption of meat and protein, while those least commonly met were recommendations for limiting consumption of processed foods and snacks. There was greater variation in meeting recommendations for the consumption of fruits and vegetables; dairy; fish; and whole grains. The percentage meeting ≤ 2 criteria ranged from 6.4% (Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults) to 40.4% (Bogalusa Heart Study). DISCUSSION: There was wide variability across preconception cohort studies in the extent to which participants met FIGO dietary guidelines. Although studies were conducted in populations that were not likely to be malnourished, it was rare for women to meet all the preconception dietary recommendations. These findings illustrate a need for strategies to promote meeting dietary guidelines prior to conception to improve health outcomes.
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.