Skip to the main content
Open WellbeingWhat the studies actually measured

Hormones, thyroid and fertility

Folateand Neural Tube Defect Risk

Only one source here so far, and it measured lower neural Tube Defect Risk.

How sure anyone can be

Moderate certainty, level 3 of 4

Further research may change this.

The numbers reported

One source’s range, drawn against its own line of no difference and scaled to its own numbers.

0.170.31 risk ratio0.58

This range stays on one side of the no-difference line.

Bar the confidence interval — the range the true effect is likely to sit inNotch the number the source reportedLine where there would be no difference at all

One source, newest first

What we read is the published abstract, not the full paper, so a blank below may still be printed in the paper itself. A fixed rule worked this out from the source’s own fields. Nobody checked this rating by hand.

  • Systematic review, 2015 · 6,708 participants

    Moderate certainty, level 3 of 4

    Effects and safety of periconceptional oral folate supplementation for preventing birth defects.

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2015(12):CD007950. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007950.pub3. PMID:26662928.

    This source later carried a notice: Update of Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Oct 06;(10):CD007950. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007950.pub2. The number below is exactly as the source gave it.

    Number reported
    0.31 risk ratio
    Which way it went
    Lower
    Likely range
    0.17 to 0.58
    Source’s own words
    risk ratio for neural tube defects vs no intervention/placebo or micronutrients without folic acid
    Who was studied
    Pregnant
    Compared with
    no intervention, placebo, or vitamins and minerals without folic acid
    Amount taken
    0.4 mg/d folic acid (400 ug or higher) (upper bound: Not in the abstract)
    For how long
    Not in the abstract
    Disagreement between studies
    Not in the abstract
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, one step down: risk of bias
    1. Starts at High
    2. Risk of bias brought it down to Moderatethe abstract's own appraisal reports serious study limitationsReported in the abstract
    3. Ends at ModerateOne step down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    indirectness and imprecision
    Inconsistency
    No disagreement reported, and no count of studies behind it

    AI-reviewed & signed — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and checked that the quote, the numbers, the units and the direction match it. No person read it. The owner authorised the agent to sign the batch with the owner's key, and every build rechecks that signature against these exact bytes.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

What is still missing from these readings

  • For how long — Not in the abstract.

Something nobody wrote down is never a zero and never a guess.

Nothing left on our list for Folate

All eight things on our list for Folate have been read. That is rare here.

Still to read means nobody here has got to it, not that it was tried and did nothing or that no research exists. A pairing on no list is not a gap: we never set out to read it.

Read next

  • Folate

    Seven other questions read for it

  • Hormones, thyroid and fertility

    27 questions read under it

  • Neural Tube Defect Risk

    No other ingredients read against it

    Alphabetical, and by nothing else.

This is a library, not advice. No recommendation, no dose, no diagnosis, no ranking. We never ask about your symptoms, and nothing here is tailored to you.