Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 348

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Folic Acid Supplementation for the Prevention of Neural Tube Defects: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

Open access
US Preventive Services Task Force, Bibbins-Domingo, Kirsten, Grossman, David C., Curry, Susan J., Davidson, Karina W., Epling, John W., García, Francisco A.R., Kemper, Alex R., Krist, Alex H., Kurth, Ann E., Landefeld, C. Seth, Mangione, Carol M., Phillips, William R., Phipps, Maureen G., Pignone, Michael P., Silverstein, Michael, Tseng, Chien-Wen·2017·JAMA

Abstract

Importance: Neural tube defects are among the most common major congenital anomalies in the United States and may lead to a range of disabilities or death. Daily folic acid supplementation in the periconceptional period can prevent neural tube defects. However, most women do not receive the recommended daily intake of folate from diet alone. Objective: To update the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on folic acid supplementation in women of childbearing age. Evidence Review: In 2009, the USPSTF reviewed the effectiveness of folic acid supplementation in women of childbearing age for the prevention of neural tube defects in infants. The current review assessed new evidence on the benefits and harms of folic acid supplementation. Findings: The USPSTF assessed the balance of the benefits and harms of folic acid supplementation in women of childbearing age and determined that the net benefit is substantial. Evidence is adequate that the harms to the mother or infant from folic acid supplementation taken at the usual doses are no greater than small. Therefore, the USPSTF reaffirms its 2009 recommendation. Conclusions and Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends that all women who are planning or capable of pregnancy take a daily supplement containing 0.4 to 0.8 mg (400-800 µg) of folic acid. (A recommendation).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2016.19438

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 348

Metadata

Authors
US Preventive Services Task Force, Bibbins-Domingo, K., Grossman, D. C., Curry, S. J., Davidson, K. W., Epling, J. W., García, F. A. R., Kemper, A. R., Krist, A. H., Kurth, A. E., Landefeld, C. S., Mangione, C. M., Phillips, W. R., Phipps, M. G., Pignone, M. P., Silverstein, M., & Tseng, C.-W.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2017-01-10
Volume
317
Issue
2
Pages
183
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2575440932
Cited by
348
References
3
FWCI
36.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Folic Acid Supplementation for the Prevention of Neural Tube Defects: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2016.19438
The paper
US Preventive Services Task Force, Bibbins-Domingo, K., Grossman, D. C., Curry, S. J., Davidson, K. W., Epling, J. W., García, F. A. R., Kemper, A. R., Krist, A. H., Kurth, A. E., Landefeld, C. S., Mangione, C. M., Phillips, W. R., Phipps, M. G., Pignone, M. P., Silverstein, M., & Tseng, C.-W. (2017). Folic Acid Supplementation for the Prevention of Neural Tube Defects: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.19438

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.