ArticleCurrent developments in nutrition2026
The Impact of Adherence to Prenatal Multiple Micronutrient Supplements on Gestational Weight Gain in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Simulation Study.
Article in Current developments in nutrition, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite the evidence that prenatal nutritional supplements increase gestational weight gain (GWG) and improve birth and pregnancy outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), adherence to prenatal nutritional supplements is generally low among pregnant females. Objectives: The study aimed to evaluate the impact of varying levels of adherence to prenatal multiple micronutrient supplements (MMS) on GWG using a simulation study that was designed based on the published meta-analysis. Methods: Simulated datasets with different sample sizes (250-4000 participant females) were generated from an assumed model to represent different proportions of females who adhered to their treatment (50%-100%). The performance metrics reported are bias, empirical variance, and mean squared error. Results: As the adherence level decreased, the average bias and the mean squared error of the estimated percent adequacy of GWG difference between those with and without supplements increased. With 2000 participants, the average bias was 0.66, 0.53, 0.40, 0.24, 0.14 for 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90% adherence, respectively. This meant that the estimated difference was significantly underestimated with 50% adherence. Results from the simulations varying the sample size and adherence level showed that at each sample size, decreasing the adherence level resulted in larger bias, and at each adherence level, the sample size does not impact the mean bias. These results also demonstrate that even with a large sample size of 4000 participants, the mean bias remains nearly as large as that observed with a smaller sample size when the adherence is low. Conclusions: Low adherence leads to significant underestimation of the beneficial effect of prenatal MMS on GWG. Increasing the sample size does not remedy this problem. These results highlight the importance of improving adherence to prenatal nutritional implements among pregnant females in LMICs to maximize GWG, reduce low birth weight, and small-for-gestational-age birth.
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.