9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Food Fortification With Folic Acid for Prevention of Spina Bifida and Anencephaly: The Need for a Paradigm Shift in Evidence Evaluation for Policy-Making

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Context-specific evidence evaluation is advocated in modern epidemiology to support public health policy decisions, avoiding excessive reliance on experimental study designs. Here we present the rationale for a paradigm shift in evaluation of the evidence derived from independent studies, as well as systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies, applying Hill’s criteria (including coherence, plausibility, temporality, consistency, magnitude of effect, and dose-response) to evaluate food fortification as an effective public health intervention against folic acid–preventable (FAP) spina bifida and anencephaly (SBA). A critical appraisal of evidence published between 1983 and 2020 supports the conclusion that food fortification with folic acid prevents FAP SBA. Policy-makers should be confident that with mandatory legislation, effective implementation, and periodic evaluation, food fortification assures that women of reproductive age will safely receive daily folic acid to significantly reduce the risk of FAP SBA. Current evidence should suffice to generate the political will to implement programs that will save thousands of lives each year in over 100 countries.

          Related collections

          Most cited references84

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.

            This article is the first of a series providing guidance for use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system of rating quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendations in systematic reviews, health technology assessments (HTAs), and clinical practice guidelines addressing alternative management options. The GRADE process begins with asking an explicit question, including specification of all important outcomes. After the evidence is collected and summarized, GRADE provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect. Recommendations are characterized as strong or weak (alternative terms conditional or discretionary) according to the quality of the supporting evidence and the balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of the alternative management options. GRADE suggests summarizing evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative summary of findings tables that show the quality of evidence and the magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each important outcome and/or as evidence profiles that provide, in addition, detailed information about the reason for the quality of evidence rating. Subsequent articles in this series will address GRADE's approach to formulating questions, assessing quality of evidence, and developing recommendations. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Am J Epidemiol
                Am J Epidemiol
                aje
                American Journal of Epidemiology
                Oxford University Press
                0002-9262
                1476-6256
                October 2021
                17 March 2021
                17 March 2021
                : 190
                : 10
                : 1972-1976
                Author notes
                Correspondence to Dr. Homero Martinez, Global Technical Services Unit, Nutrition International, 180 Elgin Street, Suite 1000, Ottawa, ON K2P 2K3, Canada (e-mail: hmartinez@ 123456nutritionintl.org ).
                Article
                kwab061
                10.1093/aje/kwab061
                8485149
                33728445
                266a20d2-ca2e-47c9-8926-830402597af5
                ©The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

                History
                : 18 November 2020
                : 2 March 2021
                : 9 March 2021
                Page count
                Pages: 05
                Categories
                Commentary
                AcademicSubjects/MED00860

                Public health
                anencephaly,folic acid,food fortification,low- and middle-income countries,neural tube defects,spina bifida

                Comments

                Comment on this article