ArticleCurrent developments in nutrition2025
Micronutrient Biomarker Selection and Assay Methods and Performance in Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Micronutrient Dose Response (MiNDR) Trials among Women of Reproductive Age and Pregnant Women in Rural Bangladesh.
Article in Current developments in nutrition, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Comprehensive documentation of micronutrient biomarker assessments, capturing status from deficiency to excess, remains limited, specifically in the context of multiple micronutrient supplementation (MMS) trials. Objectives: We document biomarker selection, preanalytical and analytical methods, assay performance evaluation, and biomarker interpretation for modeling the dose-response effects of MMS in 2 parallel bioefficacy trials among women of reproductive age and pregnant women in rural Bangladesh. Methods: Blinded analysis of biomarker assays is being performed in the field and at 2 laboratories. Automated clinical chemistry analyzers are used to measure conventional serum and plasma biomarkers of vitamin D, B12, folate, iron, inflammation, iodine, and bone turnover. Plasma vitamers of A, E, B2, and B6, and urinary B1, B2, and B3 are measured by ultra-performance liquid chromatography (UPLC). A serum mineral panel is analyzed by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Urinary iodine and functional assays for vitamin B1, B2, and B12, iron, and selenium are measured using 96-well plate methods. Point-of-care tests are performed for hemoglobin in venous blood, whereas liver and kidney function, glucose, and a lipid panel are performed in plasma. Results: Limits of detection and quantitation for biomarker assays are reported. Interassay coefficient of variations of quality control (QC) materials for primary outcome biomarkers are 4%-10% for automated analyzers, ICP-MS, and 96-well plate, and 2%-11% for UPLC assays, where available. Measurements of two-thirds of the primary outcome biomarkers could be evaluated using established external QC materials to ensure assay performance. Conclusions: The detailed account of micronutrient biomarker assays in the dose-response MMS trials provides a useful framework for designing future research involving comprehensive assessments of micronutrient status in vulnerable populations. External quality assurance tools are warranted for UPLC-based B1, B2, and B3 vitamers, and for kinetic assays of B1, B2, and selenium.
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.