We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Orofacial clefts (OFC) are the most prevalent craniofacial birth defect. Folic acid (FA) supplementation has been demonstrated as an effective intervention to reduce risk of OFC occurrence. However, the effect of mandatory FA fortification of wheat and/or maize flour on OFC prevalence has shown controversial results among countries adopting this policy. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis to synthesize the available evidence evaluating the global impact of this mandatory policy on OFC occurrence.
Design
Literature search in conventional and grey medical/scientific databases showed fifteen studies considering OFC prevalence in pre- and post-fortification periods with FA. The effect of this policy was evaluated by computing relative risk (RR) and separating samples into total OFC, non-syndromic forms, cleft lip with or without cleft palate (CL/P) and cleft palate only (CPO).
Results
We found a significant effect of FA fortification only on non-syndromic CL/P (RR=0·88; 95 % CI 0·81, 0·96), whereas neutral effects were detected for total OFC (syndromic plus non-syndromic) and CPO.
Conclusions
Our results may reflect the different aetiology of syndromic OFC with respect to non-syndromic forms and the CL/P related to CPO. Although the number of non-syndromic CL/P samples was lower than that for total OFC, the absence of both between-study heterogeneity and publication bias leads us to conclude that FA fortification may have beneficial effects on non-syndromic CL/P.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.