ArticlePublic health nutrition2025
Evaluating the quality of online fertility nutrition claims.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo (1) explore and analyse current online preconception health and nutrition-related claims, (2) assess identified online preconception health claims against current preconception guidelines and (3) understand the perceived health claims among reproductive-aged men and women.
settingFive online media platforms were searched using fertility nutrition-related search terms.
participantsAll claims were assessed by an expert panel against nine Australian and International preconception guidelines. A sample of eighty reproductive-aged men and women rated a random sample of claims.
designA content analysis of 191 claims was conducted using NVivo 12 Plus to group recurring topics into themes and then categories. Survey participants rated forty claims using a 5-point Likert scale from 'Not at all likely' to 'Highly likely'. If at least 75 % of the surveyed population considered a claim 'likely' or 'unlikely', it was classified as such.
resultsTwo themes were generated:
conclusionsThere is a myriad of inaccurate information online related to fertility nutrition and lifestyle behaviours. Social media public health campaigns to disseminate quality evidence for preconception health are necessary to improve awareness among those who access online information.
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.