Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Anreicherung von Reis mit Vitaminen und Mineralstoffen zur Vorbeugung eines Mikronährstoffmangels

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009902.pub2Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 25 October 2019see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Public Health Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2019 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Juan Pablo Peña‐Rosas

    Correspondence to: Evidence and Programme Guidance, Department of Nutrition for Health and Development, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

  • Prasanna Mithra

    Department of Community Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India

  • Bhaskaran Unnikrishnan

    Department of Community Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India

  • Nithin Kumar

    Department of Community Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India

  • Luz Maria De‐Regil

    Global Technical Services, Nutrition International, Ottawa, Canada

  • N Sreekumaran Nair

    Department of Medical Biometrics & Informatics (Biostatistics), Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER) (Institution of National Importance Under Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India), Dhanvantri Nagar, India

  • Maria N Garcia‐Casal

    Evidence and Programme Guidance, Department of Nutrition for Health and Development, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

  • Juan Antonio Solon

    Nutrition Center of the Philippines, Muntinlupa City, Philippines

Contributions of authors

Protocol development: Joseph Ashong drafted an initial protocol with technical input from Sumithra Muthayya, Arnaud Laillou, Luz Maria De‐Regil and Juan Pablo Pena‐Rosas. Luz Maria De‐Regil, Belinda Burford and Juan Pablo Pena‐Rosas developed the methods of the protocol. All authors provided input and contributed to drafting the final version of the protocol.

Review development: all authors contributed to screening, extraction and assessment of data, as described in the Methods. MNGC, JPP and LMD prepared the GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables. All the review authors wrote and approved the final manuscript.

Juan Pablo Peña‐Rosas is the guarantor for the review.

Disclaimer: Juan Pablo Peña‐Rosas and Maria Nieves Garcia‐Casal are full‐time staff members of the World Health Organization. The review authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this publication and they do not necessarily represent the official position, decisions, policy or views of the World Health Organization.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Centre for Health Innovation and Partnership, NSW Health, North Parramatta, Australia.

  • Department of Nutrition for Health and Development, World Health Organization, Switzerland.

External sources

  • Evidence and Programme Guidance, Department of Nutrition for Health and Development, World Health Organization, Switzerland.

    WHO provided partial financial support from the Department of Nutrition for Health and Development for this work for some of the authors of this review.

  • Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), Switzerland.

    WHO thanks GAIN for their financial support for conducting systematic reviews on micronutrient interventions. SM received partial financial support from GAIN during the preparation of the protocol.

  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), USA.

    The National Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities provided financial support for conducting this systematic review.

  • Nutrition International, Canada.

    WHO thanks Nutrition International for their financial support for conducting systematic reviews on micronutrient interventions.

  • The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, USA.

    WHO acknowledges the financial support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for the development of systematic reviews of the evidence on the effects of nutrition interventions.

Declarations of interest

Juan Pablo Peña‐Rosas (JPP) co‐ordinates the Evidence and Programme Guidance Unit, Department of Nutrition for Health and Development, which received financial resources from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (2013‐2019); US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2014‐2019); Nutrition International (2014‐2019) and USAID (2014‐2019). Donors do not fund specific guidelines and do not participate in any decision related to the guideline development process including the composition of policy questions, membership of the guideline groups, the conduct and interpretation of systematic reviews, or the formulation of recommendations.

Prasanna Mithra (PM) received partial financial support from the Department of Nutrition for Health and Development, World Health Organization for this work.

B Unnikrishnan (BUK) received partial financial support from the Department of Nutrition for Health and Development, World Health Organization for this work.

Nithin Kumar (NK) received partial financial support from the Department of Nutrition for Health and Development, World Health Organization for this work.

Luz Maria De‐Regil (LMD) was a full‐time staff member of Nutrition International (formerly Micronutrient Initiative), an international not‐for‐profit organisation that delivers nutrition interventions to children, women of reproductive age and pregnant women. Nutrition International supports the implementation of large‐scale research projects on food fortification. None of them met the inclusion criteria of this review. Nutrition International is a partner of the Food Fortification Initiative and receives funds from the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs. LMD was an Editor for the Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group.

Sreekumar Nair (SN) received partial financial support from the Department of Nutrition for Health and Development, World Health Organization for this work.

Maria Nieves Garcia‐Casal (MNG) is a scientist in the Evidence and Programme Guidance Unit, Department of Nutrition for Health and Development, which received financial resources from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (2013‐2019); US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2014‐2019); Nutrition International (2014‐2019) and USAID (2014‐2019). Donors do not fund specific guidelines and do not participate in any decision related to the guideline development process including the composition of policy questions, membership of the guideline groups, the conduct and interpretation of systematic reviews, or the formulation of recommendations.

Juan Antonio Solon (JAS) is president of the Nutrition Center of the Philippines, a non‐profit organisation working towards nutrition security (www.ncp.org.ph). He received partial financial support for this work. His involvement with the review was at the final stage where he helped with the interpretation of the results.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the editorial staff of Cochrane Public Health, in particular Solange Durao, Anke Rohwer, Reza Yousefi‐Nooraie, Irma Klerings, Hilary Thomson and Newton Opiyo (Cochrane Public Health and Health Systems Network)” for their support throughout the preparation of this review. The review team also acknowledges the external referees, Mark Lawrence and Annhild Mosdøl for their useful input to this work.

We would to thank Joseph Ashong, Sumithra Muthayya, Arnaud Laillou, Christophe Guyondet, Regina Moench‐Pfanner, and Belinda J Burford for their work in the protocol and in the early stages of the review. Joseph Ashong, Sumithra Muthayya, Arnaud Laillou and Christophe Guyondet initially screened independently the records for eligibility in an early search in 2012. The whole process was repeated in 2016 to 2017 for this version of the review with a new review team.

We are grateful for technical support from Dr Lucero Lopez and Dr Ricardo X Martinez for the interpretation of the results from two non‐randomised studies.

Special thanks are due to Joanne Abbott, for her support in designing and running various updates to the search strategy. We would like to thank Mr Thomas Allen and Jose Luis Garnica from the World Health Organization Library Services for their support with the search in Agricola. We also thank all the authors who contributed additional details of their studies.

The World Health Organization retains copyright and all other rights in the manuscript of this review as submitted for publication, including any revisions or updates to the manuscript that they may make from time to time.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2019 Oct 25

Fortification of rice with vitamins and minerals for addressing micronutrient malnutrition

Review

Juan Pablo Peña‐Rosas, Prasanna Mithra, Bhaskaran Unnikrishnan, Nithin Kumar, Luz Maria De‐Regil, N Sreekumaran Nair, Maria N Garcia‐Casal, Juan Antonio Solon

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009902.pub2

2012 Jun 13

Fortification of rice with vitamins and minerals for addressing micronutrient malnutrition

Protocol

Joseph Ashong, Sumithra Muthayya, Luz Maria De‐Regil, Arnaud Laillou, Christophe Guyondet, Regina Moench‐Pfanner, Belinda J Burford, Juan Pablo Peña‐Rosas

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009902

Differences between protocol and review

We aimed at searching two databases in the protocol that were not available to us at the review stage: BIOSIS and Food Science and Technology Abstracts (FSTA). We also made the following changes from the published protocol (Ashong 2012).

  1. We removed the subgroup analysis by prevalence of stunting in children under five years in the study site: moderate (number of children whose height‐for‐age Z‐score is between −2.0 and 2.99 standard deviations (SD) below the mean) versus severe stunting (number of children whose height‐for‐age Z‐score is less than −3.0 SD below the mean) versus mixed/unknown/unreported. This information was not available in most studies and not all studies were conducted in children. The most commonly used form of reporting was by mean Z‐score in each group rather than the prevalence.

  2. We removed the subgroup by iron compound as most studies used micronized pyrophosphate and ferrous sulphate, which have similar bioavailability with differences varying depending on encapsulation, particle size and other factors not captured in these studies.

  3. Given the different ways that diarrhoea was reported, we changed our protocol definition of three liquid stools in a single day, to any as defined by study authors in order to be able to capture this adverse effect, if present.

  4. We have included any adverse effects to primary outcomes. They are reported separately.

  5. We did not consider before‐and‐after studies without a control group for inclusion in this review as planned in protocol.

  6. We did not include data from non‐randomised studies in the quantitative synthesis and the review conclusions, since these studies provided little information on the comparative effectiveness of rice fortification in improving nutrition. However, we did include them in the qualitative synthesis because of their details on contextual aspects and concepts of fortification. We mentioned their findings under the subheading 'Summary of non‐randomised studies' at the end of the main synthesis.

  7. We have made the change from the proposed type of participants in the protocol being general population of all age groups (including pregnant women) from any country to general population older than two years of age (including pregnant women) from any country.

  8. We planned to examine the effects of two or more nutrients (in the same study arm) in multiple comparisons. However, owing to the duplication of findings because most of the studies had iron as one of the micronutrients in the fortification arm, we included multi nutrient studies in comparison 1 only and since one study had vitamin A only in one of the arms, we included it in comparison 2.

Keywords

MeSH

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.

WHO/CDC logic model for micronutrients interventions in public health (with permission from WHO)
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

WHO/CDC logic model for micronutrients interventions in public health (with permission from WHO)

PRISMA study flow diagram
Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

PRISMA study flow diagram

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each 'Risk of bias' item for each included studyFour studies were controlled before‐and‐after studies (Ara 2019; Della Lucia 2016; Gershoff 1977; Nogueira Arcanjo 2013), and one was a controlled cross‐sectional study (Salcedo 1950)
Figures and Tables -
Figure 3

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each 'Risk of bias' item for each included study

Four studies were controlled before‐and‐after studies (Ara 2019; Della Lucia 2016; Gershoff 1977; Nogueira Arcanjo 2013), and one was a controlled cross‐sectional study (Salcedo 1950)

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each 'Risk of bias' item presented as percentages across all included studies
Figures and Tables -
Figure 4

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each 'Risk of bias' item presented as percentages across all included studies

Funnel plot of comparison 1. Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added), outcome 1.13, haemoglobin concentration (g/L)
Figures and Tables -
Figure 5

Funnel plot of comparison 1. Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added), outcome 1.13, haemoglobin concentration (g/L)

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 1 Anaemia (defined as haemoglobin (Hb) below the WHO cut‐off, adjusted for altitude as appropriate).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 1 Anaemia (defined as haemoglobin (Hb) below the WHO cut‐off, adjusted for altitude as appropriate).

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 2 Anaemia (subgroup: by micronutrient content).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 2 Anaemia (subgroup: by micronutrient content).

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 3 Anaemia (subgroup: by rice fortification method).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 3 Anaemia (subgroup: by rice fortification method).

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 4 Anaemia (subgroup: by cooking method most commonly used in trial setting).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 4 Anaemia (subgroup: by cooking method most commonly used in trial setting).

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 5 Anaemia (subgroup: by public health significance of anaemia at baseline ).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 5 Anaemia (subgroup: by public health significance of anaemia at baseline ).

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 6 Anaemia (subgroup: by malaria endemicity).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 6 Anaemia (subgroup: by malaria endemicity).

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 7 Iron deficiency (as defined by study authors, based on a biomarker of iron status).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 7 Iron deficiency (as defined by study authors, based on a biomarker of iron status).

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 8 Iron deficiency (subgroup: by micronutrient content).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 8 Iron deficiency (subgroup: by micronutrient content).

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 9 Iron deficiency (subgroup: by rice fortification method).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 9 Iron deficiency (subgroup: by rice fortification method).

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 10 Iron deficiency (subgroup: by cooking method most commonly used in trial setting).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 10 Iron deficiency (subgroup: by cooking method most commonly used in trial setting).

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 11 Iron deficiency (subgroup: by public health significance of anaemia at baseline ).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 11 Iron deficiency (subgroup: by public health significance of anaemia at baseline ).

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 12 Iron deficiency (subgroup: by malaria endemicity).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 12 Iron deficiency (subgroup: by malaria endemicity).

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 13 Haemoglobin concentration (g/L).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 13 Haemoglobin concentration (g/L).

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 14 Haemoglobin concentration (subgroup: by micronutrient content).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 14 Haemoglobin concentration (subgroup: by micronutrient content).

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 15 Haemoglobin concentration (subgroup: by rice fortification method).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 15 Haemoglobin concentration (subgroup: by rice fortification method).

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 16 Haemoglobin concentration (subgroup: by cooking method most commonly used in trial setting).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 16 Haemoglobin concentration (subgroup: by cooking method most commonly used in trial setting).

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 17 Haemoglobin concentration (subgroup: by public health significance of anaemia at baseline).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.17

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 17 Haemoglobin concentration (subgroup: by public health significance of anaemia at baseline).

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 18 Haemoglobin concentration (subgroup: by malaria endemicity).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.18

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 18 Haemoglobin concentration (subgroup: by malaria endemicity).

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 19 Vitamin A deficiency (as defined by study authors, by using a biomarker of vitamin A).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.19

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 19 Vitamin A deficiency (as defined by study authors, by using a biomarker of vitamin A).

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 20 Vitamin A deficiency (subgroup: by micronutrient content).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.20

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 20 Vitamin A deficiency (subgroup: by micronutrient content).

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 21 Vitamin A deficiency (subgroup: by rice fortification method).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.21

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 21 Vitamin A deficiency (subgroup: by rice fortification method).

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 22 Vitamin A deficiency (subgroup: by cooking method most commonly used in trial setting).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.22

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 22 Vitamin A deficiency (subgroup: by cooking method most commonly used in trial setting).

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 23 Vitamin A deficiency (subgroup: by public health significance of anaemia at baseline ).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.23

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 23 Vitamin A deficiency (subgroup: by public health significance of anaemia at baseline ).

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 24 Vitamin A deficiency (subgroup: by malaria endemicity).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.24

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 24 Vitamin A deficiency (subgroup: by malaria endemicity).

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 25 Serum or plasma folate (nmol/L).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.25

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 25 Serum or plasma folate (nmol/L).

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 26 Any adverse effects.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.26

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 26 Any adverse effects.

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 27 Diarrhoea (as defined by study authors).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.27

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 27 Diarrhoea (as defined by study authors).

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 28 Serum or plasma retinol (µmol/L).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.28

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 28 Serum or plasma retinol (µmol/L).

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 29 Serum or plasma zinc (µmol/L).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.29

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 29 Serum or plasma zinc (µmol/L).

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 30 Height‐for‐age Z‐score.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.30

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 30 Height‐for‐age Z‐score.

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 31 Weight‐for‐height Z‐score.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.31

Comparison 1 Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)., Outcome 31 Weight‐for‐height Z‐score.

Comparison 2 Rice fortified with vitamin A alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added), Outcome 1 Haemoglobin concentration (g/L).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Rice fortified with vitamin A alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added), Outcome 1 Haemoglobin concentration (g/L).

Comparison 2 Rice fortified with vitamin A alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added), Outcome 2 Serum or plasma retinol (µmol/L).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Rice fortified with vitamin A alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added), Outcome 2 Serum or plasma retinol (µmol/L).

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients compared to unfortified rice (no micronutrients added) for addressing micronutrient malnutrition among the included studies

Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients compared to unfortified rice (no micronutrients added) for addressing micronutrient malnutrition

Patient or population: general population older than 2 years of age (including pregnant women) from any country
Setting: Burundi, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Philippines, Thailand and USA
Intervention: rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients
Comparison: unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)

Risk with rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients

Anaemia

(defined as haemoglobin below the WHO cut‐off, adjusted for altitude as appropriate)

Study population

RR 0.72 (0.54 to 0.97)

1634

(7 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

Low1

Included studies: Angeles‐Agdeppa 2008; Hardinsyah 2016; Hotz 2008; Parker 2015 (C); Perignon 2016 (C); Radhika 2011; Thankachan 2012

388 per 1000

279 per 1000
(209 to 376)

Iron deficiency

(as defined by study authors, based on a biomarker of iron status)

Study population

RR 0.66

(0.51 to 0.84)

1733
(8 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low2

Included studies: Angeles‐Agdeppa 2008; Hardinsyah 2016; Hotz 2008; Moretti 2006b; Perignon 2016 (C); Pinkaew 2013; Radhika 2011; Thankachan 2012

228 per 1000

150 per 1000
(116 to 191)

Haemoglobin concentration

(in g/L)

The mean haemoglobin concentration (g/L) in the intervention groups was 1.83 higher (0.66 to 3.00 higher)

2163
(11 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low3

Included studies: Angeles‐Agdeppa 2008; Hardinsyah 2016; Hotz 2008; Hussain 2014; Losso 2017; Moretti 2006b; Parker 2015 (C); Perignon 2016 (C); Pinkaew 2013; Radhika 2011; Thankachan 2012

Vitamin A deficiency

(as defined by the study authors)

Study population

RR 0.68

(0.36 to 1.29)

927

(4 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low4

Included studies: Hardinsyah 2016; Perignon 2016 (C); Pinkaew 2014; Thankachan 2012

105 per 1000

71 per 1000

(38 to 135)

Serum or plasma folate

(nmol/L)

The mean serum or plasma folate (nmol/L) in the intervention group was 4.30 higher (2.00 to 6.60 higher)

215

(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low5

Included study: Hardinsyah 2016

Any adverse effects

(hookworm infection risk)

Study population

RR 1.78
(1.18 to 2.70)

785
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low6

Included study: Perignon 2016 (C)

119 per 1000

211 per 1000
(140 to 320)

Diarrhoea

(as defined by study authors)

Study population

RR 3.52
(0.18 to 67.39)

258
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very Low7

Included study: Thankachan 2012

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: confidence interval; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio; WHO: World Health Organization

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

1Downgraded 2 levels: one for serious limitations in study design or execution (risk of bias) and one for indirectness. The baseline characteristics were not similar in all groups and the method of randomisation was unclear in half of the studies. Also studies used different cut‐off levels of haemoglobin to define anaemia. Hardinsyah 2016; Parker 2015 (C); Perignon 2016 (C); Radhika 2011 used WHO cut‐off levels, Hotz 2008 used CDC criteria and Angeles‐Agdeppa 2008 and Thankachan 2012 did not name the criteria they used.
2Downgraded 2 levels: one for serious limitations in study design or execution (risk of bias) and one for indirectness as most of the studies, except one (Hotz 2008), were conducted in children. There was negligible inconsistency among the studies.
3Downgraded 2 levels: one for serious limitations in study design or execution (risk of bias) and one for indirectness. Most of the included studies (except Hotz 2008; Losso 2017) were carried out among children. Losso 2017 was carried out in USA, which is a different study setting as compared to all other studies included.
4Downgraded 2 levels: one for serious risk of bias and one for inconsistency. Findings from the studies crossed line of no effect except one study (Thankachan 2012), which showed clear benefit due to fortification.
5Downgraded 2 levels for risk of bias being serious in the included study (Hardinsyah 2016), having selection bias, reporting bias and presence of other bias.
6Downgraded 2 levels: one for inconsistency and one for indirectness. Only one study in children assessed this adverse effect of hookworm infection in an endemic setting to soil‐transmitted helminth infections among participating children (Perignon 2016 (C)).
7Downgraded 3 levels: one for inconsistency, one for indirectness and one for imprecision. Only one study in children reported on this outcome and assessed it through asking participating children about symptoms and signs during the previous week (Thankachan 2012). Wide confidence intervals.

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients compared to unfortified rice (no micronutrients added) for addressing micronutrient malnutrition among the included studies
Summary of findings 2. Rice fortified with vitamin A alone or in combination with other micronutrients compared to unfortified rice (no micronutrients added) for addressing micronutrient malnutrition

Rice fortified with vitamin A alone or in combination with other micronutrients compared to unfortified rice (no micronutrients added) for addressing micronutrient malnutrition

Patient or population: general population older than 2 years of age (including pregnant women) from any country
Setting: India
Intervention: rice fortified with vitamin A alone or in combination with other micronutrients
Comparison: unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with rice fortified with vitamin A alone or in combination with other micronutrients

Haemoglobin concentration

(g/L)

MD 10 higher
(8.79 higher to 11.21 higher)

74
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
Low1

Included study: Hussain 2014

Serum or plasma retinol

(µmol/L)

MD 0.17 higher
(0.13 higher to 0.21 higher)

74
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
Low1

Included study: Hussain 2014

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: confidence interval; MD: mean difference; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

1Downgraded by 2 levels: one level for risk of bias and one level for indirectness. The only study was carried out in India with a small sample size (250 children aged 5‐8 years) attending a school with a subsidised lunch feeding programme (Hussain 2014).

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings 2. Rice fortified with vitamin A alone or in combination with other micronutrients compared to unfortified rice (no micronutrients added) for addressing micronutrient malnutrition
Table 1. Description of various forms of rice

Forms of rice

Description of rice

Rough rice (paddy rice)

Rice kernels still enclosed in an inedible, protective hull

Brown rice

Rice with only the hull removed. Bran layers and rice germ remain, giving the rice a brown colour

Parboiled rice

Rice pressurised to gelatinise the starch within the rice kernel, resulting in a firmer, more separate grain that is more stable and less susceptible to overcooking than regular‐milled white rice

Regular‐milled white rice (milled rice)

Polished whole rice, or polished rice. Hull, bran layer and germ have all been removed

Precooked rice

Regular milled white rice, parboiled milled white rice, and brown rice can be precooked and dehydrated before packaging. Examples of precooked rice are quick‐cooking rice, instant rice, and boil‐in‐the‐bag rice

Individually quick frozen (IQF) rice

Cooked grains are individually frozen before packaging

Crisped/puffed/expanded rice

Kernels can be processed in a number of different ways and shapes to meet particular manufacturing need

Adapted from Dexter 1998.

Figures and Tables -
Table 1. Description of various forms of rice
Table 2. Summary of characteristics of included studies

Study and year

(Country)

Participants

Type of rice fortification and dosage

Duration of intervention

Overall risk of bias

RCTs (individual randomisation)

Angeles‐Agdeppa 2008

(Philippines)

180 anaemic children aged 6‐9 years excluding severe anaemia (Hb < 70 g/L), history of blood disorders and other haemoglobinopathies

  1. Participants were allocated to 3 groups of 60 each; receiving 160 g of cooked iron‐enriched rice with ferrous sulphate powder (ExFeSO4), micronized ferric pyrophosphate (ExFeP80); and cooked unfortified rice

  2. Interventions were given as 2‐week cycle with standard dishes during lunch, daily for 5 days/week as a supervised regimen.

6 months

High

Hardinsyah 2016

(Indonesia)

200 post‐menarchal adolescent girls 14‐18 years of age attending boarding school

  1. Participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups: group 1 (n = 100) received meals containing fortified rice (iron, vitamin A, zinc, folic acid, thiamin, vitamin B12); group 2 (n = 100) received meals prepared with unfortified rice.

  2. All participants received the meals from the school kitchen.

  3. Every meal given to students always contained rice, side dish and vegetable soup (once a day); side dishes being rotated between egg, fish, chicken, tempe, or tofu.

4 months

High

Hotz 2008

(Mexico)

180 non‐pregnant, non‐lactating women 18‐49 years of age with moderate to low Hb concentrations from 6 factories

  1. Participants were allocated to 2 groups of 90 each. Group 1 received iron‐formula UltraRice® and group 2 received unfortified rice.

  2. The iron fortificant was microencapsulated, micronized ferric pyrophosphate. The fortified rice was formulated to provide 20 mg of iron per daily portion. The fortified grains were mixed directly with dry, locally obtained rice.

  3. For first 3 months of the study, the fortified grains were added at 2:100 (weight/weight), and each daily portion of rice consisted of 75 g of dry rice

  4. For second half of the feeding period the blend rate was doubled to 4:100 and the daily quantity of dry rice was halved to 37 g per person, making the iron fortificant per daily portion same

6 months

High

Hussain 2014

(India)

222 iron‐ and vitamin A‐depleted children 5‐8 years of age attending a subsidised lunch feeding programme

  1. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 groups: the group receiving fortified rice (n = 185) were randomly assigned to 5 subgroups based on the iron deficiency, iron‐deficiency anaemia and vitamin A deficient status at baseline.

  2. The subgroups that were divided from the fortified rice were: group 1 (n = 37) : children receiving iron‐fortified meals; group 2 (n = 37) : children receiving beta‐carotene‐fortified meals; group 3 (n = 37): children receiving retinyl palmitate‐fortified meals; group 4 (n = 37): children receiving iron + retinyl palmitate‐fortified meals; group 5 (n = 37): children receiving iron + beta‐carotene‐fortified meals.

  3. The meals were consumed under direct supervision, and the daily leftovers were weighed.

  4. All the children were dewormed at baseline.

6 months

High

Losso 2017

(USA)

17 menstruating women with iron‐deficiency anaemia

  1. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: group 1 (n = 9) received 100 g of rice (0.75 cups of cooked rice in 2 servings) per day in a 1:1 ratio of fortified rice containing 18 mg elemental iron/100 g rice); group 2 (n = 6) received unfortified rice (0.5 mg iron/100 g rice).

  2. The intervention lasted 2 weeks. The rice dishes were prepared in the Pennington metabolic kitchen and dispensed frozen in an insulated chest to the participants weekly in lots of 14 with instructions to heat and consume 1 rice dish twice a day.

2 weeks

High

Moretti 2006b

(India)

184 iron‐depleted children aged 6‐13 years from a primary school serving the Rock‐Colony neighbourhood

  1. Participants were allocated to 2 groups of 92 children each: group 1 received rice‐based lunch meal fortified with 20 mg elemental iron (as micronized ground ferric pyrophosphate); group 2 received an identical but unfortified control meal.

  2. Lunch was served 6 days/week (except for school holidays).

  3. 3 local recipes of rice cooked with different seasoning ingredients were presented in repeating sequence.

  4. At baseline and at the midpoint of the study, all participants were dewormed with 400 mg albendazole and were treated with vitamin A supplements (200000 IU) 4 months before the start of the study and study midpoint.

7 months

Low

Pinkaew 2013

(Thailand)

The study was conducted in 8 primary schools with children aged 4‐12 years and they were mainly from low‐income families.

  1. School children with low serum zinc (n = 203) were randomised to 2 groups and group 1 received triple‐fortified rice (n = 101); group 2 received natural control rice (n = 102) as a component of school lunch meals.

  2. The fortification level of the extruded rice grains was 10 mg iron, 9 mg zinc and 1050 mg vitamin A/g of extruded rice.

5 months

High

Pinkaew 2014

(Thailand)

One primary school in the Muang district, of Thailand with children aged 8‐12 years, were the study participants

  1. Schoolchildren with general good health and no major chronic diseases aged 8‐12 years (n = 50) were recruited for the study.

  2. Children who had consumed the triple‐fortified rice in a previous study or showed clinical symptoms of vitamin A deficiency (Bitot's spot or ocular signs of xerophthalmia) or serum retinol values of < 0.7mmol/L were excluded.

2 months

High

Radhika 2011

(India)

140 children aged between 5 and 11 years (with haemoglobin > 70 g/L)

  1. Study participants were allocated to 2 groups of 70 children each. Group 1 received the fortified rice and group 2 received unfortified rice. Micronized ferric pyrophosphate was used to fortify the extruded rice kernels considering in vitro availability, and loss of iron during cooking consisting of 125 g rice (dry weight) with 19 mg iron (fortified rice); normal rice mixed with UltraRice® (extruded kernels containing MFPP of 3.14 µm mean particle size) in comparison with unfortified rice.

8 months

Low

Thankachan 2012

(India)

Total of 258 anaemic (Hb concentrations 115 g/L for 6–11 years and 120 g/L for 12 years) children attending 4 primary schools aged 6‐12 years

  1. The children were assigned to 3 intervention groups of 86 children each to receive rice‐based lunch meals fortified with multiple micronutrients with either low‐iron (6.25 mg) or high‐iron (12.5 mg) concentrations or identical meals with unfortified rice.

  2. The fortified, artificially extruded‐rice kernels contained 6.25 mg iron/g as micronized ground ferric pyrophosphate and were mixed with local natural rice at a 1:99 ratio to obtain low‐iron fortified rice.

  3. To obtain high‐iron fortified rice, fortified artificially extruded rice, together with low‐iron fortified rice (prepared earlier) (6.25 mg iron/100 g raw rice) were mixed with natural rice at a 1:1:98 ratio to result in a fortification level of 12.5 mg iron/100 g natural raw rice.

  4. The 3 types of rice (high iron: 12.5 mg iron/100 g, low iron: 6.5 mg iron/100 g, and control; 100 g raw rice/meal) were used to prepare lunch meals daily in the kitchen.

6 months

High

RCTs (cluster randomisation)

Parker 2015 (C)

(Burundi)

The study included 1071 children from 12 schools in Burundi aged between 7 and 11 years

  1. 12 schools in Burundi were assigned to 2 groups. 1 group received UltraRice® (fortified rice) and the other group received traditional rice. UltraRice® (UR) premix kernels were manufactured to contain 100% of the recommended nutrient intakes (RNI) for iron, zinc, thiamin, and folic acid, through the school feeding programme.

  2. Hb status was measured.

  3. Children attending the intervention group schools received fortified rice with iron (17.8 mg), zinc (8.5 mg), thiamine (1.8 mg), and folic acid (600 mg) for 5 days/week for 7 months and children in control group schools received an equivalent unfortified rice containing endogenous quantities of iron (1.2 mg), zinc (1.7 mg), thiamin (0.1 mg), and folate (14 mg).

7 months

High

Perignon 2016 (C)

(Cambodia)

The study was a double‐blind cluster‐randomised, placebo‐controlled trial conducted among a total of 2440 school‐going children aged 6‐16 years.

  1. 20 primary schools in Cambodia were randomised to 5 arms (4 intervention + 1 control arm). The 4 intervention groups were fortified cold‐extruded rice (UltraRice® original formulation), fortified hot‐extruded rice (UltraRice® new formulation), fortified hot‐extruded rice Nutririce, non‐fortified rice (placebo) and a control group without the school feeding programme.

  2. The control schools were randomly selected from 16 primary schools participating in another programme of WFP (take‐home ration programme) not receiving a school meal.

  3. The UltraRice® original (URO) was produced by cold extrusion and the UltraRice new (URN) and NutriRice® by hot extrusion. Fortification process was carried out in such a way that every 100 g of URO provided 10.76 mg iron, 3.04 mg zinc; 170 folic acid, 1.06 vitamin B1, URN 7.55 mg iron, 2.02 mg zinc, 2140 IU vitamin A, 280 folic acid, 1.43 vitamin B1 and NutriRice® 7.46 mg iron, 3.68 mg zinc, 960 IU vitamin A, 140 folic acid and 0.69 vitamin B1

6 months

High

Non‐randomised studies (controlled before‐and‐after studies)

Ara 2019

(Bangladesh)

870 women aged 15‐49 years excluding severe anaemia (435/group) at baseline and 800 (400/group) at end line

  1. Rice flour was fortified using hot extrusion technology and homogeneous blending of the same with unfortified rice.

  2. The intervention group received 30 kg fortified rice; the control group received 30 kg non‐fortified rice for every month from January 2013‐December 2013.

  3. After 12 months of fortified rice/non‐fortified rice consumption, the end line data were collected from December 2016‐April 2017.

  4. Follow‐up of the World Food Programme interventions was done on another group from the same area.

12 months

High

Della Lucia 2016

(Brazil)

131 non‐anaemic children between 2 and 6 years old, of both genders, participated in the study.

  1. Participants from the selected preschools received either micronutrient fortified rice (UltraRice®) or unfortified polished rice, as part of school meals, 50 g daily, Monday through Friday.

4 months

High

Gershoff 1977

(Thailand)

2250 children aged 1.5‐9 years from 29 villages

  1. The villages were divided into 5 groups: group 1 no intervention provided; group 2 placebo control, unfortified rice plus day­care centre food for preschool children; group 3, received fortified rice containing 0.087 3% thiamin naphthalene disulfonate, 0.0815% of retinol acetate, and 0.8% FeP04:4H20 (0.2% iron) plus day‐care centre food; group 4 received fortified rice containing 0.087 3% thiamin naphthalene disulfonate, 0.0815% of retinol acetate, 0.8% FeP04:4H20 plus 20% L‐lysine HCI and I 0% L‐threonine in addition to day‐care centre food; group 5 received fortified rice containing 0.087 3% thiamin naphthalene disulfonate, 0.0815% of retinol acetate, 0.8% FeP04:4H20 plus 20% L‐lysine HCI and I 0% L‐threonine, no day‐care centre food

  2. Before being mixed with the other ingredients. the rice was cooked by putting it in water and cooking under low heat for 15 minutes.

4 years

High

Nogueira Arcanjo 2013

(Brazil)

303 children 2‐5 years of age attending 2 public schools in City of Sobral‐Ceará, in the northeast of Brazil, between August and December 2010

  1. Participants from 2 schools received the assigned intervention to the schools: children in group 1 (school A) (n = 138) received iron‐fortified rice (UltraRice®); children in group 2 (school B) (n = 165) received unfortified standard rice.

  2. The study rice was consumed with poultry, which was the customarily consumed meal for Tuesdays at the schools.

18 weeks

High

Non‐randomised studies (controlled cross‐sectional study)

Salcedo 1950

(Philippines)

574 children aged between 3 and 18 years

2188 Government employees with their families

1416 military personnel (clinical assessment limited to 350 in the experimental group and 116 in the control group)

  1. Study participants were given 200‐250 g of fortified or unfortified rice. Both groups consumed between 200‐250 g of rice.

  2. Among military personnel, a total of 1300 were given fortified rice, but clinical assessment was limited to 350 participants serving as the experimental group and an additional 116 participants serving as the control.

  3. Fortification consisted of rice grains impregnated with premix and mixed at 1:200 to have a final fortified rice (per kg) with 4.4 mg thiamine, 33 mg niacin, 28.6 mg elemental (as iron pyrophosphate).

8 months

High

CBA: controlled before‐and‐after study; Hb: haemoglobin; RCT: randomised controlled trial

Figures and Tables -
Table 2. Summary of characteristics of included studies
Table 3. PROGRESS‐Plus equity checklist of included studies

Study

Place

 Race/ethnicity

 Occupation

 Gender

Religion/

culture/education

Socio‐economic status

Social status

Others/ disability/

age/

sexual orientation

Overall PROGRESS‐Plus

Angeles‐Agdeppa 2008

Metro Manila, Division Pasig; Philippines

No specific mention, apart from the locality of the school in the capital city

School children

Male 99 + female 81

No religion mentioned; children going to San Joaquin Elementary School (public)

Not mentioned

Not mentioned

Anaemic children; sexual orientation not mentioned

This study was carried out among 180 anaemic children going to a government elementary school.

Ara 2019

Vulnerable Group
Development (VDG) beneficiaries in 5 districts of Bangladesh

Not mentioned specifically, however, they were the local resident women.

It included professional workers,
unskilled workers,
agricultural labourers,
home servants and
housewives. Most of the study population were housewives

Non‐pregnant women aged 15‐49 years

No religion mentioned; nearly 25% without any education

No direct estimate provided; however, most of the study participants were from lower socioeconomic strata

Not mentioned

Women with severe anaemia were excluded. Sexual orientation is not mentioned

The study was carried out among 870 women of reproductive age and local residents of Bangladesh

Della Lucia 2016

Brazil

Not specified

School‐going children

No religion mentioned, attending philanthropic schools

Not mentioned

Not mentioned

Children, 2‐6 years old

This study was carried out in 2 public schools among non‐anaemic children 2‐6 years of age during 4 consecutive months.

Gershoff 1977

Chiang Mai villages in tile valley of the Ping River, Thailand

Thai children

Children in the community

Male 1121

+ female 1109

No religion mentioned. Children in the study villages

Not mentioned

Low/middle

Normal children; sexual orientation not mentioned

The study included 2230 children attending pre‐school and school from the low/middle social background

Hardinsyah 2016

Medan of North Sumatra Province, Indonesia

The majority of participants' ethnicity was Javanese and Bataknese

Teenage girls attending boarding school

Female

There is mention of the Ramadan fasting month during the second week of June

The family income ranges from 4.9 million to 5.5 million Rupiahs (Approximately 340 to 390 US Dollars)

Not mentioned

Age 14‐18 years of age

This study was carried out among post‐menarchal adolescent girls attending boarding school in Indonesia. The study lasted 4 months.

Hotz 2008

Morelos State, Mexico

Mexican women

Factory workers

Women only

No religion mentioned; 18‐49 years

Low/middle school

Low/middle

Anaemic women; sexual orientation not mentioned

This study included women with altitude‐adjusted Hb concentrations between 105
and 135 g/L from low/middle social background, non‐pregnant and non‐lactating.

Hussain 2014

India

Iron and vitamin A‐depleted 5‐8‐year‐old children attending a subsidised lunch feeding programme

Children attending a school‐based feeding programme

Not specified

Not reported

Not reported

Not mentioned, although programme is subsidised

5‐8 years of age

This study included 222 children aged 5‐8 years attending a school where there was a subsidised lunch feeding programme in India receiving a 200‐250 g meal of cooked rice daily.

Losso 2017

Baton Rouge, USA

In the iron‐fortified group: 4 white, 3 black or African‐American, 1 Asian, 1 other; in the unfortified rice group: 3 white, 2 black or African American, 1 Asian

Women only

Not reported

Not mentioned

Not mentioned

18‐50 years of age

This study included women with iron‐deficiency anaemia recruited through web and phone interviews and then in a clinic.

Moretti 2006b

Franciscan primary school serving the
population of Rock‐Colony neighbourhood, in crowded urban
slum of Bangaoore; India

Indian

School‐going children

Not mentioned

6‐13 years

Low

Low

Children with iron deficiency; sexual orientation not mentioned

Study included children having iron deficiency from an urban slum neighbourhood in India, belonging to low socioeconomic status and low social class

Nogueira Arcanjo 2013

Public schools in City of Sobral‐Ceará, in the northeast of Brazil

Not reported

School‐going children

Fortified rice group: 65 male: 73 female; unfortified rice group: 79 male: 86 female

2‐5 years of age

Not reported. Family income 300 USD or less (it is unclear if this is weekly or monthly income ‐ not reported).

126/138 participants from iron‐fortified group versus 154/165 participants from unfortified group.

Not mentioned

Children 2‐5 years of age. Other information not reported

This before‐and‐after study included children 2‐5 years of age from 2 public schools in northeast Brazil receiving the school lunch programme and the fortified/unfortified intervention once a week.

Parker 2015 (C)

The study was carried out in Muyinga Province in Burundi catering to mainly agrarian population

Burundians

School‐going children

Female: 51.1% in intervention arm, 55.3% in control arm

Religion was not mentioned. 7‐11 years

Mean socioeconomic status score quintile = 3.03 (1.45) for intervention arm and 2.97 (1.37) for control arm

Not mentioned

Children with Hb level 70‐110 g/L and those who had not taken any nutritional supplements during the past 1 month since commencement of the study were included. Sexual orientation is not mentioned.

This cluster‐RCT included 904 children who were mild to moderately anaemic from the selected schools of Burundi and mainly with an agricultural background.

Perignon 2016 (C)

The study was carried out in Kampung Speu Province of Cambodia

Cambodians

School‐going children

Male and female participants had equal representation

(50% each)

6‐16 years

Not mentioned

Not mentioned

Excluding severely anaemic children. All in the eligible age group were included in the study. Sexual orientation not mentioned

The cluster‐RCT included children from selected schools of Cambodia in KamPong Speu province with rice farming as a predominant occupation and income source.

Pinkaew 2013

Satun province, west coast of southern Thailand

Thai Muslims

School children

Male, 98 + female 105

Majority Muslim, age group of 7‐12 years

Low

Low/middle

Children with zinc deficiency; sexual orientation not mentioned

This study included school‐going children from low socioeconomic status and having zinc deficiency in Thailand.

Pinkaew 2014

Muang District, Satun Province of southern Thailand

Thai Muslims

School Children

Males, 24 and females, 26

Majority Muslims in the age group 8‐12 years

Low

Low/middle

Children who had consumed the triple‐fortified rice before or showed clinical symptoms of VAD (Bitots spot or ocular signs of xerophthalmia) or serum retinol values of < 0.7m

mol/L were
excluded

This study included school‐going children from low socioeconomic status and having zinc deficiency in Thailand.

Radhika 2011

Village of Keesara; Andhra Pradesh State in India

Indian

School children

Male 56 + female 90

No mention of religion; age group of 5‐11 years

Low/middle

Low/middle

Anaemic children; sexual orientation not mentioned

The study included anaemic children from low‐middle socioeconomic background belonging to a rural area in India.

Salcedo 1950

Bataan, Philippines

Filipinos

Children and military personnel

Male and female, but proportions not reported

No mention of religion or education

Children lived in a welfare institution; military personnel were fully employed

Not mentioned

No exclusions were reported; sexual orientation was not mentioned

The study was conducted among children living in a welfare institution and among military personnel in the Philippines.

Thankachan 2012

Primary schools in
Bangalore Urban District of Karnataka State; South India

Indians

School children

Male 47%, female 53%

Hindu > Christians > Muslim; 6‐12 years

Low/middle school

Low

Anaemic children; sexual orientation not mentioned

This study included anaemic school going children from low socioeconomic background from an urban area India.

Hb: haemoglobin; RCT: randomised controlled trial

Figures and Tables -
Table 3. PROGRESS‐Plus equity checklist of included studies
Table 4. Fortification profile per 100 grams of uncooked fortified rice in included studies

Study

Elemental iron

(mg)

Vitamin Aa

(mg)

Zinc

(mg)

Folic acid

(µg)

Vitamin B1 (thiamin)

(mg)

Vitamin B2 (riboflavin)

(mg)

Vitamin B3 (niacin)

(mg)

Vitamin B6 (pyridoxine)

(mg)

Vitamin B12 (cobalamin)

(µg)

Angeles‐Agdeppa 2008

6.25

Ara 2019 (CBA)

6

0.15

4.00

130

0.40

1.0

Della Lucia 2016 (CBA)

8.4

4.20

144

0.72

Gershoff 1977 (CBA)

0.2

0.81

0.087

0.04

0.2

0.81

0.087

0.04

0.2

0.81

0.087

0.04

Hardinsyah 2016

10.8

0.28

5.20

145

3.2

Hotz 2008

26.6

Hussain 2014

4

1.20 (as beta‐carotene)

0.18

4

0.18

4

1.20 (as beta‐carotene)

Losso 2017

18

Moretti 2006b

20

Nogueira Arcanjo 2013 (CBA)

112.8

Parker 2015 (C)

11.9

5.70

400

1.80

Perignon 2016 (C)

10.67

3.04

170

1.06

7.55

0.64

2.02

280

1.43

12.57

3.8

7.46

0.29

3.68

140

0.69

7.98

0.92

1.26

Pinkaew 2013

20

2.10

18

Pinkaew 2014

20

2.10

18

Radhika 2011

15

Salcedo 1950 (CBA)

2.86

0.44

0.33

Thankachan 2012

12.5

0.50

3

75

0.38

5

0.38

0.75

6.25

0.50

3

75

0.38

5

0.38

0.75

C: cluster randomised; CBA: controlled before‐and‐after study

aOne international unit (IU) vitamin A is equivalent to 0.0003 mg of retinol, 0.0006 mg of beta‐carotene and 0.0012 mg of other pro‐vitamin A carotenoids.

Figures and Tables -
Table 4. Fortification profile per 100 grams of uncooked fortified rice in included studies
Table 5. Haemoglobin thresholds used in the included studies to define anaemia

Study

Haemoglobin threshold (g/L)

Criteria

Angeles‐Agdeppa 2008

Anaemia was defined as haemoglobin concentration in blood < 120 g/L

Not mentioned

Ara 2019

< 120 g/L in non‐pregnant and non‐lactating women

Not mentioned

Della Lucia 2016

≥ 110 g/L was used as a cut off for including children in the study. Anaemia was not defined

Not reported

Gershoff 1977

Haemoglobin levels were categorised as deficient < 100, low 100‐90 (g/L)

Not mentioned

Hardinsyah 2016

Severe anaemia: < 80 g/L; moderate anaemia: 80‐109 g/L; mild anaemia: 110‐119 g/L; non anaemia: ≥ 120 g/L

WHO (WHO 2011a)

Hotz 2008

< 122 g/L, adjusted for average altitude of the study sites (1100 m) with the use of an equation

CDC (CDC 1989)

Hussain 2014

< 110 g/L and severely anaemic (Hb < 75 g/L) were excluded

Not mentioned

Losso 2017

Not reported (iron‐deficiency anaemia was defined based on iron and ferritin levels in serum)

Not reported

Moretti 2006b

< 115 g/L in children aged 5–11 years

WHO (WHO 2001)

Nogueira Arcanjo 2013

< 110 g/L in children < 5 years of age

WHO (WHO 2001)

Parker 2015 (C)

For school‐aged children at 1500 m above sea level, mild anaemia was defined as Hb 115‐119 g/L, moderate anaemia Hb 85‐114 g/L, and severe anaemia Hb < 85 g/L

WHO (WHO 2011f)

Perignon 2016 (C)

< 115 g/L for children aged 6‐11 years, < 120 g/L for children aged 12‐14 years and girls aged ≥ 15 years and < 130 g/L for boys aged ≥ 15 years

WHO (WHO 2001)

Pinkaew 2013

< 120 g/L

Not mentioned

Pinkaew 2014

Not reported

Not reported

Radhika 2011

In children aged 5–11 years, anaemia (mild to moderate) was defined as Hb 70‐115 g/L.

WHO (WHO 2001)

Salcedo 1950

Not reported

Not reported

Thankachan 2012

< 115 g/L in children aged 6–11 years and < 120 g/L in participants aged ≥ 12 years

Not mentioned

CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Hb: haemoglobin; WHO: World Health Organization

Figures and Tables -
Table 5. Haemoglobin thresholds used in the included studies to define anaemia
Table 6. Sensitivity analysis of two cluster‐randomised trials using different intra‐cluster correlation on the outcomes anaemia and haemoglobin concentration

Outcome (all studies included in the analysis)

Study (ICC)

RR (95% CI)

Tau²

Chi²

P value

Anaemia

(Angeles‐Agdeppa 2008; Hardinsyah 2016; Hotz 2008; Parker 2015 (C); Perignon 2016 (C); Radhika 2011; Thankachan 2012)

Parker 2015 (C) (0)

0.83 (0.64 to 1.08)

0.06

16.06

0.01

63%

Parker 2015 (C) (0.001)

0.83 (0.64 to 1.08)

0.06

15.72

0.02

62%

Parker 2015 (C) (0.002)

0.83 (0.64 to 1.08)

0.06

15.71

0.02

62%

Parker 2015 (C) (0.005)

0.83 (0.64 to 1.07)

0.06

15.12

0.02

60%

Parker 2015 (C) (0.01)

0.83 (0.64 to 1.08)

0.06

14.80

0.02

59%

Parker 2015 (C) (0.02723)

0.83 (0.64 to 1.07)

0.05

13.08

0.04

54%

Parker 2015 (C) (0.1)

0.81 (0.64 to 1.03)

0.04

10.03

0.12

40%

Perignon 2016 (C) (0)

0.83 (0.67 to 1.03)

0.04

13.17

0.04

54%

Perignon 2016 (C) (0.001)

0.83 (0.67 to 1.04)

0.04

13.15

0.04

54%

Perignon 2016 (C) (0.002)

0.83 (0.66 to 1.04)

0.04

13.16

0.04

54%

Perignon 2016 (C) (0.005)

0.83 (0.66 to 1.05)

0.04

13.12

0.04

54%

Perignon 2016 (C) (0.01)

0.83 (0.65 to 1.05)

0.05

13.12

0.04

54%

Perignon 2016 (C) (0.02723)

0.83 (0.64 to 1.07)

0.05

13.08

0.04

54%

Perignon 2016 (C)( 0.1)

0.83 (0.63 to 1.09)

0.06

13.08

0.04

54%

Outcome (all studies included in the analysis)

Study (ICC)

MD (95% CI)

Tau²

Chi²

P value

Haemoglobin concentration (Angeles‐Agdeppa 2008; Hardinsyah 2016; Hotz 2008; Hussain 2014; Losso 2017; Moretti 2006b; Parker 2015 (C); Perignon 2016 (C); Pinkaew 2013; Radhika 2011; Thankachan 2012)

Parker 2015 (C) (0)

1.69 (0.48 to 2.91)

1.82

24.15

0.007

59%

Parker 2015 (C) (0.001)

1.70 (0.48 to 2.92)

1.81

23.90

0.008

58%

Parker 2015 (C) (0.002)

1.71 (0.49 to 2.93)

1.81

23.69

0.008

58%

Parker 2015 (C) (0.005)

1.73 (0.51 to 2.96)

1.80

23.18

0.01

57%

Parker 2015 (C) (0.01)

1.77 (0.54 to 3.00)

1.79

22.62

0.01

56%

Parker 2015 (C)) (0.02723)

1.85 (0.61 to 3.10)

1.77

21.73

0.02

54%

Parker 2015 (C)) (0.1)

1.98 (0.71 to 3.25)

1.76

20.96

0.02

52%

Perignon 2016 (C)) (0)

1.85 (0.61 to 3.09)

1.77

21.98

0.02

55%

Perignon 2016 (C)) (0.001)

1.85 (0.61 to 3.09)

1.77

21.97

0.02

54%

Perignon 2016 (C)) (0.002)

1.85 (0.61 to 3.09)

1.77

21.96

0.02

54%

Perignon 2016 (C)) (0.005)

1.85 (0.61 to 3.10)

1.77

21.93

0.02

54%

Perignon 2016 (C)) (0.01)

1.85 (0.61 to 3.10)

1.77

21.89

0.02

54%

Perignon 2016 (C)) (0.02723)

1.85 (0.61 to 3.10)

1.77

21.73

0.02

54%

Perignon 2016 (C)) (0.1)

1.86 (0.61 to 3.11)

1.78

21.15

0.02

53%

C: cluster‐randomised trial; CI: confidence interval; ICC: intra‐cluster correlation coefficient; MD: mean difference; RR: risk ratio

Figures and Tables -
Table 6. Sensitivity analysis of two cluster‐randomised trials using different intra‐cluster correlation on the outcomes anaemia and haemoglobin concentration
Comparison 1. Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added).

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Anaemia (defined as haemoglobin (Hb) below the WHO cut‐off, adjusted for altitude as appropriate) Show forest plot

7

1634

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.54, 0.97]

2 Anaemia (subgroup: by micronutrient content) Show forest plot

7

1634

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.66, 1.04]

2.1 Iron alone

3

444

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.63 [0.36, 1.09]

2.2 Iron + other micronutrients

4

1190

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.82, 1.11]

3 Anaemia (subgroup: by rice fortification method) Show forest plot

7

1634

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.55, 0.97]

3.1 Hot extrusion

5

1197

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.52, 1.01]

3.2 Cold extrusion

3

437

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.75 [0.41, 1.38]

3.3 Coating

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.4 Dusting

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.5 Mixed/unknown/unreported

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Anaemia (subgroup: by cooking method most commonly used in trial setting) Show forest plot

7

1634

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.54, 0.97]

4.1 Soaking, and boiling with excess water

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.2 Boiling without excess water

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.3 Rinsing and boiling without excess water

1

215

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.40 [0.26, 0.63]

4.4 Frying and boiling without excess water

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.5 Unknown/unreported

6

1419

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.63, 1.05]

5 Anaemia (subgroup: by public health significance of anaemia at baseline ) Show forest plot

7

1634

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.54, 0.97]

5.1 Not a problem (lower than 5%)

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.2 Mild and moderate (5% to 39.9%)

4

1129

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.69 [0.44, 1.06]

5.3 Severe (40% and more)

2

360

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.67, 1.12]

5.4 Mixed/unknown/unreported

1

145

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.31 [0.09, 1.10]

6 Anaemia (subgroup: by malaria endemicity) Show forest plot

7

1634

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.54, 0.97]

6.1 Some malaria risk setting

1

445

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.55, 1.32]

6.2 Malaria‐free area

2

403

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.48, 1.03]

6.3 Unknown/unreported

4

786

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.34, 1.31]

7 Iron deficiency (as defined by study authors, based on a biomarker of iron status) Show forest plot

8

1733

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.66 [0.51, 0.84]

8 Iron deficiency (subgroup: by micronutrient content) Show forest plot

8

1733

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.66 [0.51, 0.84]

8.1 Iron alone

4

628

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.56 [0.40, 0.80]

8.2 Iron + other micronutrients

4

1105

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.57, 1.06]

9 Iron deficiency (subgroup: by rice fortification method) Show forest plot

8

1733

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.66 [0.52, 0.83]

9.1 Hot extrusion

6

1283

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.66 [0.51, 0.87]

9.2 Cold extrusion

3

450

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.65 [0.38, 1.09]

9.3 Coating

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9.4 Dusting

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9.5 Mixed/unknown/unreported

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10 Iron deficiency (subgroup: by cooking method most commonly used in trial setting) Show forest plot

8

1733

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.66 [0.51, 0.84]

10.1 Soaking, and boiling with excess water

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10.2 Boiling without excess water

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10.3 Rinsing and boiling without excess water

1

215

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.79 [0.51, 1.21]

10.4 Frying and boiling without excess water

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10.5 Unknown/unreported

7

1518

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.63 [0.46, 0.84]

11 Iron deficiency (subgroup: by public health significance of anaemia at baseline ) Show forest plot

8

1733

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.66 [0.51, 0.84]

11.1 Not a problem (lower than 5%)

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

11.2 Mild and moderate (5% to 39.9%)

4

1046

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.55, 1.07]

11.3 Severe (40% and more)

2

358

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.57 [0.26, 1.27]

11.4 Mixed/unknown/unreported

2

329

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.63 [0.39, 1.01]

12 Iron deficiency (subgroup: by malaria endemicity) Show forest plot

8

1733

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.66 [0.51, 0.84]

12.1 Some malaria risk setting

1

485

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.48, 1.53]

12.2 Malaria‐free area

3

585

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.58 [0.41, 0.84]

12.3 Mixed/unknown/unreported

4

663

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.61 [0.39, 0.96]

13 Haemoglobin concentration (g/L) Show forest plot

11

2163

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.83 [0.66, 3.00]

14 Haemoglobin concentration (subgroup: by micronutrient content) Show forest plot

11

2163

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.09 [0.75, 3.44]

14.1 Iron alone

6

698

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.93 [1.24, 6.62]

14.2 Iron + other micronutrients

6

1465

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.15, 1.98]

15 Haemoglobin concentration (subgroup: by rice fortification method) Show forest plot

11

2163

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.60 [0.81, 2.38]

15.1 Hot extrusion

7

1563

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.93 [0.53, 3.32]

15.2 Cold extrusion

3

437

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.54 [0.58, 2.51]

15.3 Coating

1

15

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

8.20 [‐12.14, 28.54]

15.4 Dusting

0

0

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

15.5 Mixed/unknown/unreported

1

148

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐4.0 [‐11.72, 3.72]

16 Haemoglobin concentration (subgroup: by cooking method most commonly used in trial setting) Show forest plot

11

2163

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.83 [0.66, 3.00]

16.1 Soaking, and boiling with excess water

0

0

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

16.2 Boiling without excess water

0

0

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

16.3 Rinsing and boiling without excess water

1

215

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.80 [0.86, 6.74]

16.4 Unknown/unreported

10

1948

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.62 [0.43, 2.81]

17 Haemoglobin concentration (subgroup: by public health significance of anaemia at baseline) Show forest plot

11

2163

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.83 [0.66, 3.00]

17.1 Not a problem (lower than 5%)

0

0

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

17.2 Mild and moderate (5% to 39.9%)

6

1459

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.67 [‐0.10, 3.44]

17.3 Severe (40% and more)

2

360

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.07 [‐0.84, 2.98]

17.4 Mixed/unknown/unreported

3

344

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.42 [1.10, 5.73]

18 Haemoglobin concentration (subgroup: by malaria endemicity) Show forest plot

11

2163

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.83 [0.66, 3.00]

18.1 Some malaria risk setting

1

445

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.65, 1.15]

18.2 Malaria‐free area

3

587

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.15 [0.98, 5.31]

18.3 Mixed/unknown/unreported

7

1131

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.33 [‐0.48, 3.14]

19 Vitamin A deficiency (as defined by study authors, by using a biomarker of vitamin A) Show forest plot

4

927

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.36, 1.29]

20 Vitamin A deficiency (subgroup: by micronutrient content) Show forest plot

4

927

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.36, 1.29]

20.1 Iron alone

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

20.2 Iron + other micronutrients

4

927

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.36, 1.29]

21 Vitamin A deficiency (subgroup: by rice fortification method) Show forest plot

4

927

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.41, 1.14]

21.1 Hot extrusion

4

765

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.35, 1.39]

21.2 Cold extrusion

1

162

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.61 [0.24, 1.54]

21.3 Coating

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

21.4 Dusting

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

21.5 Mixed/unknown/unreported

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

22 Vitamin A deficiency (subgroup: by cooking method most commonly used in trial setting) Show forest plot

4

927

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.36, 1.29]

22.1 Soaking, and boiling with excess water

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

22.2 Boiling without excess water

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

22.3 Rinsing and boiling without excess water

1

215

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.10 [0.47, 2.60]

22.4 Frying and boiling without excess water

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

22.5 Unknown/unreported

3

712

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.25, 1.22]

23 Vitamin A deficiency (subgroup: by public health significance of anaemia at baseline ) Show forest plot

4

927

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.36, 1.29]

23.1 Not a problem (lower than 5%)

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

23.2 Mild and moderate (5% to 39.9%)

3

695

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.29, 1.24]

23.3 Severe (40% and more)

1

232

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.46 [0.30, 7.07]

23.4 Mixed/unknown/unreported

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

24 Vitamin A deficiency (subgroup: by malaria endemicity) Show forest plot

4

927

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.36, 1.29]

24.1 Some malaria risk setting

1

442

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.57 [0.30, 1.08]

24.2 Malaria‐free area

1

232

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.46 [0.30, 7.07]

24.3 Unknown/unreported

2

253

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.12, 2.59]

25 Serum or plasma folate (nmol/L) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

26 Any adverse effects Show forest plot

2

1019

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.21 [0.53, 2.76]

26.1 Hookworm infection risk

1

785

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.78 [1.18, 2.70]

26.2 Abdominal pain more than 3 days

1

234

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.42, 1.42]

27 Diarrhoea (as defined by study authors) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

28 Serum or plasma retinol (µmol/L) Show forest plot

5

727

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.04 [‐0.13, 0.21]

29 Serum or plasma zinc (µmol/L) Show forest plot

3

618

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.38 [‐0.08, 0.83]

30 Height‐for‐age Z‐score Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

31 Weight‐for‐height Z‐score Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Rice fortified with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added).
Comparison 2. Rice fortified with vitamin A alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Haemoglobin concentration (g/L) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Serum or plasma retinol (µmol/L) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 2. Rice fortified with vitamin A alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice (no micronutrients added)