ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
Omega-3 supplementation during pregnancy in relation to reported information sources: an exploratory cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOmega-3 fatty acid supplementation during pregnancy is recommended in certain settings and may be relevant for maternal and fetal health, yet uptake varies widely. While educational attainment is commonly considered a determinant of health behavior, the relationship between reported information sources and supplementation practices during pregnancy remains insufficiently understood.
methodsA cross-sectional online survey was conducted among pregnant women attending a university hospital in Germany between June 2024 and January 2025. Data were collected on current omega-3 supplementation, preconception omega-3 use, educational attainment, parity, and reported sources of information about dietary supplements. Source-specific associations with current and preconception omega-3 use were examined exploratorily using 2 × 2 contingency tables. Conditional maximum-likelihood odds ratios (ORs) with central exact 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and corresponding two-sided central exact P values were calculated.
resultsA total of 127 completed questionnaires were included. Overall, 75.6% of participants reported current omega-3 supplementation, while 34.6% reported preconception omega-3 use. The internet was the most frequently reported source of information about dietary supplements (73.2%), followed by gynecologists (56.7%) and books (37.0%). Participants reporting midwives as an information source had higher estimated odds of current omega-3 supplementation (OR 6.84, 95% CI 1.56-62.84). Participants reporting digital/media sources had higher estimated odds of preconception omega-3 use (OR 6.59, 95% CI 1.47-61.13). Both estimates were imprecise, with wide confidence intervals. No clear association between educational attainment and omega-3 supplementation was observed in this highly educated sample.
conclusionsIn this selective sample, exploratory analyses identified patterns of co-occurrence between reported sources of information about dietary supplements and omega-3 supplementation behavior. The findings do not establish that specific information sources provided omega-3-specific advice, influenced supplementation behavior, or preceded omega-3 use. Larger prospective studies are needed to examine these relationships and the content and timing of information exposure.
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.