↓ Skip to main content

Vitamin A supplementation for postpartum women

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Vitamin A supplementation for postpartum women
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005944.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julicristie M Oliveira, Roman Allert, Christine E East

Abstract

In areas where vitamin A deficiency (VAD) is a public health concern, the maternal dietary intake of vitamin A may be not sufficient to meet either the maternal nutritional requirements, or those of the breastfed infant, due the low retinol concentrations in breast milk. To evaluate the effects of vitamin A supplementation for postpartum women on maternal and infant health. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (8 February 2016), LILACS (1982 to December 2015), Web of Science (1945 to December 2015), and the reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster-randomised trials that assessed the effects of vitamin A supplementation for postpartum women on maternal and infant health (morbidity, mortality and vitamin A nutritional status). Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, conducted data extraction, assessed risk of bias and checked for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Fourteen trials of mainly low or unclear risk of bias, enrolling 25,758 women and infant pairs were included. The supplementation schemes included high, single or double doses of vitamin A (200,000 to 400,000 internation units (IU)), or 7.8 mg daily beta-carotene compared with placebo, no treatment, other (iron); or higher (400,000 IU) versus lower dose (200,000 IU). In all trials, a considerable proportion of infants were at least partially breastfed until six months. Supplement (vitamin A as retinyl, water-miscible or beta-carotene) 200,000 to 400,000 IU versus control (placebo or no treatment) Maternal: We did not find evidence that vitamin A supplementation reduced maternal mortality at 12 months (hazard ratio (HR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 2.21; 8577 participants; 1 RCT, moderate-quality evidence). Effects were less certain at six months (risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.71; 564 participants; 1 RCT; low-quality evidence). The effect on maternal morbidity (diarrhoea, respiratory infections, fever) was uncertain because the quality of evidence was very low (50 participants, 1 RCT). We found insufficient evidence that vitamin A increases abdominal pain (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.73; 786 participants; 1 RCT; low-quality evidence). We found low-quality evidence that vitamin A supplementation increased breast milk retinol concentrations by 0.20 µmol/L at three to three and a half months (mean difference (MD) 0.20 µmol/L, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.31; 837 participants; 6 RCTs). Infant: We did not find evidence that vitamin A supplementation reduced infant mortality at two to 12 months (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.52; 6090 participants; 5 RCTs; low-quality evidence). Effects on morbidity (gastroenteritis at three months) was uncertain (RR 6.03, 95% CI 0.30 to 121.82; 84 participants; 1 RCT; very low-quality evidence). There was low-quality evidence for the effect on infant adverse outcomes (bulging fontanelle at 24 to 48 hours) (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.61 to 6.55; 444 participants; 1 RCT). Supplement (vitamin A as retinyl) 400,000 IU versus 200,000 IUThree studies (1312 participants) were included in this comparison. None of the studies assessed maternal mortality, maternal morbidity or infant mortality. Findings from one study showed that there may be little or no difference in infant morbidity between the doses (diarrhoea, respiratory illnesses, and febrile illnesses) (312 participants, data not pooled). No firm conclusion could be drawn on the impact on maternal and infant adverse outcomes (limited data available).The effect on breast milk retinol was also uncertain due to the small amount of information available. There was no evidence of benefit from different doses of vitamin A supplementation for postpartum women on maternal and infant mortality and morbidity, compared with other doses or placebo. Although maternal breast milk retinol concentrations improved with supplementation, this did not translate to health benefits for either women or infants. Few studies reported on maternal and infant mortality and morbidity. Future studies should include these important outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 2 1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Niger 1 <1%
Unknown 180 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 23%
Researcher 30 16%
Student > Bachelor 30 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 11%
Unspecified 20 11%
Other 45 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 75 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 18%
Unspecified 28 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 6%
Social Sciences 12 6%
Other 28 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 September 2017.
All research outputs
#1,331,109
of 13,500,356 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,835
of 10,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,924
of 264,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#90
of 194 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,500,356 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,620 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,758 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 194 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.