Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 May 2;18(5):e0284648. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284648

Dietary magnesium intakes among women of reproductive age in Ghana—A comparison of two dietary analysis programs

Helena J Bentil 1,*, Seth Adu-Afarwuah 2, Joseph S Rossi 3, Alison Tovar 1, Brietta M Oaks 1
Editor: Linglin Xie4
PMCID: PMC10153694  PMID: 37130108

Abstract

Background

Despite the importance of magnesium to health and most importantly to women of reproductive age who are entering pregnancy, very few surveys have investigated the magnesium status of women of reproductive age, particularly in Africa. Additionally, the software and programs used to analyze dietary intake vary across countries in the region.

Objective

To assess the dietary magnesium intake of women of reproductive age in Ghana and to compare the estimate of magnesium intake obtained from two commonly used dietary analysis programs.

Methods

We collected magnesium intake from 63 Ghanaian women using a semiquantitative 150-item food frequency questionnaire. Dietary data was analyzed using two different dietary analysis programs, Nutrient Data Software for Research (NDSR) and the Elizabeth Stewart Hands and Associates (ESHA) Food Processor Nutrition Analysis software. We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test to compare the mean differences between the two dietary programs.

Results

There were significant differences between the average dietary magnesium intake calculated by the two dietary programs, with ESHA estimating higher magnesium intake than NDSR (M±SE; ESHA: 200 ± 12 mg/day; NDSR: 168 ± 11 mg/day; p<0. 05). The ESHA database included some ethnic foods and was flexible in terms of searching for food items which we found to be more accurate in assessing the magnesium intake of women in Ghana. Using the ESHA software, 84% of the study women had intake below the recommended dietary allowances (RDA) of 320mg/day.

Conclusion

It is possible that the ESHA software provided an accurate estimate of magnesium in this population because it included specific ethnic foods. Concerted efforts such as magnesium supplementation and nutrition education should be considered to improve the magnesium intake of women of reproductive age in Ghana.

Introduction

Magnesium serves as a cofactor in more than 300 enzymatic reactions including those responsible for regulating blood pressure, glycemic control and lipid peroxidation [1]. Several epidemiological studies and meta-analyses have reported inverse associations of dietary magnesium intake with the risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and hypertension [13]. In women of reproductive age, low magnesium intake during pregnancy is associated with a higher risk of restricted fetal growth, intrauterine growth restriction, gestational diabetes, preterm labor, and pre-eclampsia [4]. In addition, low magnesium intake during pregnancy has been identified as a main actor in the fetal programming of adult disease [4]. Specifically, intrauterine magnesium deficiency in the fetus could program insulin resistance after birth, inducing the increased risk of metabolic syndrome in adulthood [4].

Despite the importance of magnesium to health and most importantly to women of reproductive age who are entering pregnancy, very few surveys have investigated the magnesium status of women of reproductive age, particularly in Africa. Ghana is one of many countries in Africa experiencing the double burden of malnutrition which is defined as the presence of both under and overnutrition. Diabetes and cardiovascular disease are among the ten leading causes of death in Ghana in addition to neonatal disorders like prematurity [5] and of which inadequate magnesium intake has been linked to these health outcomes. According to data from 44 African countries to estimate per capita magnesium supply, the risk of dietary magnesium deficiency is low in most African countries, with the lowest risk of 0.5% in West Africa [6]. However, the analysis was based on per capita food supply which does not account for waste from cooking, spoilage, plate waste or household purchasing power and therefore, can overestimate national dietary consumption of magnesium. There is a need to assess the magnesium intake of Ghanaian women using a dietary assessment to determine the magnesium intake in this population.

Magnesium status is usually determined through assessments of dietary magnesium intake. Serum magnesium is a poor indicator of total body magnesium stores, accounting for only 0.3% of total body magnesium [7]. In addition, serum magnesium is maintained at a relatively constant level even during periods of low intake of magnesium with intracellular magnesium in the bone, and muscles serving as a reservoir to stabilize serum concentration when intake is low [7, 8]. Although dietary assessment is the most reliable way to determine magnesium status, there is variation in the software and programs used to analyze dietary intake across countries. For example, dietary studies in West African countries, often use the ESHA (Elizabeth Stewart Hands and Associates) Food Processor [9] while studies in other countries, including the U.S., typically use the NDSR (Nutrient Data Software for Research) because of its associated food composition database (Nutrition Coordinating Center (NCC) Food and Nutrient Database) [10]. Currently, there are no guidelines or consensus on which software should be used and it is also unknown whether they provide differing estimates of magnesium intake. Given that magnesium status is best assessed via diet and there is a variation in the software used to analyze dietary intake, there is a need to compare estimates of magnesium calculated using different dietary software.

Therefore, the goal of this study was to investigate the magnesium status in women of reproductive age in Ghana and to compare estimates of magnesium calculated using ESHA and NDSR.

Materials and methods

Study design, setting and participants

Between July and August 2019, we conducted a pilot cross-sectional study among 63 women living in Odumase Krobo, a peri-urban area and the district capital of Lower Manya Krobo District in the Eastern Region of Ghana, located about 70 km north of the capital city, Accra. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the association between magnesium intake and biomarkers of diabetes risk. Main results and a detailed description of the sampling process has been published elsewhere [11]. Women were recruited into the study if they were between the ages of 18–49 years old, a resident of Odumase Krobo, able to speak either Krobo, Twi, or English and non-pregnant according to self-report. Eligible women were visited at their homes. During the home visits, women were consented and completed an interviewer-administered survey to collect information on socio-demographic characteristics, a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) to collect information on dietary magnesium intake, and height and weight measurements. The study was approved by the Ghana Health Service Ethical Committee (REF# GHS-ERC016/10/18) and the University of Rhode Island Institutional Review Board (REF# BI1819-005). Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants before participation. Participants agreed to participate by either signing or thumbprinting the informed consent form.

Socio-demographic variables and anthropometry

We used an interviewer-administrated questionnaire programmed using the REDCap data collection tool to collect data on socio-demographic characteristics including age, ethnicity, marital status (single, married or separated/widowed/divorced), number of successful pregnancies, completed educational level (none, primary education or less, high school, or tertiary level), employment status (employed or not employed), sources of drinking water and type of sanitation facility. We classified sources of drinking water and type of sanitation facility as improved or unimproved based on WHO’s classification to determine the proportion of women who had access to improved vs. unimproved water and sanitation [12]. Households that use piped water connected in dwelling, plot or yard; public standpipes; boreholes; protected dug wells; protected springs and rainwater collection were classified as having an improved source of water. If a household sanitation facility included either a flush or pour-flush connected to a public sewer or septic system, sewer system, septic tank pit latrines, ventilated-improved pit latrines, or pit latrines with slab or composting toilets, it was considered an improved source. Unimproved sanitation included shared or public-use sanitation facilities and pit latrines without slabs or open pits, bucket/hanging latrines, or open defecation.

We measured height and weight using standard procedures [13] with a height board (UNICEF S0114540) and digital weight scale (SECA 874) respectively. Both measurements were taken with the women barefoot and wearing light clothes. Height was recorded to the nearest 0.1 cm and weight was recorded to the nearest 0.1kg. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as weight (kg) / (height (m))2 and classified according to the World Health Organization criteria [12]: underweight (BMI < 18.5 kg/m2), normal weight (BMI 18.5–24.9 kg/m2), overweight (BMI 25.0–29.9 kg/m2) or obese (BMI ≥ 30.0 kg/m2).

Assessment of dietary magnesium intake

Dietary magnesium intake were assessed using a semiquantitative 150-item food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) which was interviewer administered and has been used in larger studies and national surveys in Ghana [1315]. For each food item, we assigned a portion size using standard household measures such as cups, tablespoons, teaspoons, glasses as well as using photographs from a Food Amounts Booklet [16]. Study participants were asked how often on average they consumed that amount in the past week. The frequency of consumption of specified portion size was asked in six categories: never, once per week, 2 times per week, 3–4 times per week, 5–6 times per week, once per day, and 2 or more times per day. We estimated daily magnesium intake by multiplying the frequency of consumption of each food item by the magnesium content of the specified portion size.

The Nutrient Data Software for Research 2018 (NDSR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA) and the ESHA Food Processor Nutrition Analysis software, version 10.8 (ESHA Research Inc, 2010, Salem, Oregon) were used to estimate dietary magnesium intake. For composite and mixed dishes, recipes were added to both the ESHA Food Processor and NDSR Nutrition Analysis software. In both programs, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) dietary database was used as the primary reference because it is comprehensive and regularly updated. The magnesium content of specific Ghanaian foods not available in either the ESHA Food Processor or NDSR were obtained from the Food and Agricultural Organization West African Food Composition table.

We also collected information on dietary supplement intake. However, none of the reported dietary supplements contained magnesium and were therefore not included in the analysis.

Statistical analyses

Categorical variables are expressed as frequencies and percentages and as mean ± standard deviation for continuous variables. Comparisons between ESHA and NDSR dietary magnesium estimates were performed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test, the non-parametric version of a paired samples t-test. All analyses were performed in the SAS Studio 5.2 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Statistical analysis was two-tailed and a p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Assuming a modest effect size of one-third of a standard deviation difference between the means and a modest correlation between the ESHR and NDSR measures of 0.60, the expected statistical power of the Wilcoxon test is 0.811.

Results

Socio-demographic and anthropometry characteristics

Socio-demographic characteristics and anthropometry of the study participants are presented in Table 1. The mean (SD) age of our study participants was 29.5 (8.5) years. Of the respondents, 56% were single, separated or widowed. Approximately 98% were of the Ga-Dangme ethnic group; 22% had completed senior high school and above; 62% were employed; 78% had been pregnant (successful) at least once; 62% had improved source of drinking water and 86% had unimproved sanitation facilities. More than half of the study participants (44%) were overweight/obese.

Table 1. Socio-demographics and anthropometry status of study participants.

Variables Frequency (%) or Mean ± SD
Age, years 29.5 ± 8.5
Marital Status
    Married 28 (44.4%)
    Single/Separated/Widow 35 (55.6%)
Ethnicity
    Ga-Dangme 62 (98.4%)
    Others 1 (1.6%)
Educational Background
    None 7 (11.1%)
    KG/Primary/JHS (Low) 42 (66.7%)
    SHS/tertiary (High) 14 (22.2%)
Employment status
    Not employed 24 (38.1%)
    Employed 39 (61.9%)
Number of pregnancies
    None 14 (22.2%)
    ≥1 49 (77.8%)
Source of drinking water
    Improved 39 (61.9%)
    Unimproved 24 (38.1%)
Sanitation facility
    Improved 9 (14.3%)
    Unimproved 54 (85.7%)
Mean BMI, kg/m2 25.2 ± 5.1
BMI Category
    Underweight 1 (1.6%)
    Normal 34 (54.0%)
    Overweight/ Obese 28 (44.4%)

KG = Kindergarten, JHS = Junior High School, SHS = Senior High School, BMI = Body Mass Index

Average dietary magnesium intake

Fig 1 presents the comparisons between the two dietary analysis programs. There was a significant difference between the estimated magnesium intake between the two programs, with a mean (SE) and median magnesium intake of 200 (12) mg/day and 185 mg/day for ESHA and 168 (11) mg/day and 145 mg/day for NDSR [mean difference (MD) = 32.23; 95% CI = 16.80, 47.65; P <0.0001]; and a Spearman correlation of 0.67. Both programs showed that a majority of the participants did not meet their recommended daily allowance for magnesium (ESHA: 84.1%; NDSR: 96.8%). Fig 2 presents the major contributors to magnesium intake. These were banku made from fermented corn, fufu and kokonte both made from cassava, koose made from cowpeas, hausa koko made from millet, light soup made from eggplant, smoked tuna, plantain, yam, and orange.

Fig 1. Average magnesium intake by ESHA and NDSR dietary programs.

Fig 1

Fig 2. Ten food sources of magnesium consumed by the study participants.

Fig 2

Discussion

We aimed to assess the dietary magnesium intake of Ghanaian women of reproductive age and also to compare the estimates of magnesium calculated using ESHA and NDSR dietary analysis programs. The average dietary intake of magnesium was below recommended dietary allowances with the majority of the women not meet the RDA of 320 mg/day. This is concerning for women because a low magnesium status at the start of pregnancy increases the risk of developing pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, preterm labor, restricted fetal growth, and intrauterine growth restriction [4]. We also observed significant differences between the dietary magnesium intake assessed by the dietary analysis programs.

Low magnesium intakes have been reported in similar populations in Ghana and other countries. Frimpong, et al. [17] assessed the dietary intakes of bank employees in Ghana using ESHA and reported a mean dietary magnesium intake of 88 mg/day for women, which was lower than our results. The difference could be attributed to differences in the dietary patterns of the urban population in Frimpong’s study versus the peri-urban dietary patterns of our study participants, as well as the employment status of the participants, which in Frimpong’s study included bank employees, whereas our study participants, while mostly employed, were mostly involved in unskilled or skilled labor such as hairdresser and trader. Joy et al. [6], on the other hand, found in their study that countries in West Africa had a mean regional supply of magnesium of 1,019 mg per capita per day based on their assessment of the country’s specific food balance sheets. In their study, they found that the grain, sorghum, which is an excellent source of magnesium, contributed greatly (559 mg per 100 g) to the region’s magnesium supply. However, sorghum was not one of the reported grains consumed by our study participants which could most likely account for the large differences. The magnesium food sources in our study ranged from animal to plant sources, but the majority came from grains like corn and millet, as well as starchy roots and tubers like cassava and yam. However, none of these sources provided 559 mg per 100g. For example, 100 g (half a US cup) of banku made from corn contains 33 mg of magnesium.

The suboptimal magnesium intakes observed in our study and other populations could be due in part to the low consumption of whole grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables that is seen in Western diets. Consistent with our finding, in the United States, for example, the reported average magnesium intake of women is 228mg/day [18]. Ford et al. [19] found similar intakes in three ethnic groups in the United States: 256 mg/day among Caucasian women, 202 mg/day among African American women, and 242 mg/day among Mexican American women. The Shanghai Women’s Health Study in China reported an average daily intake of 267 mg [19]. In the German population, women’s magnesium intake was found to be 200 mg respectively [20]. Dietary patterns in Ghana like in other low-and middle-income countries have gradually been westernized due to urbanization and economic growth [21]. The western diet is often low in magnesium due to the refining and processing of foods [1]. Refined and processed foods contain almost no magnesium [1]. For example, wheat refined to flour, rice to polished rice, and corn to starch deplete magnesium by 82%, 83%, and 97%, respectively [8]. Magnesium is mainly found in unprocessed foods like green vegetables, whole grains, legumes and nuts [1].

Both the ESHA Food Processor and NDSR programs have been used to estimate nutrient intakes in several populations [17, 2227]. We selected ESHA Food Processor as the principal software in our study since it is regularly used in West Africa to assess magnesium intake [9], but we also wanted to compare the results to other systems, such as NDSR, which is widely used in the United States and there is currently no formal guidance as to which should be used in Ghana [10]. The ESHA food processor has been used in several studies especially in West Africa because of the inclusion of certain ethnic foods like fufu in the database not found in the NDSR database. This may have accounted for the differences in the estimates of magnesium calculated using the programs. The search of food and beverage items in the ESHA food processor is easy and one may not necessarily have to be specific in searching for food and beverage items in the database. However, searching for food and beverage items in NDSR is a bit more complicated because one must search by food groups. When food groups differ between countries, it becomes more complicated. For example, in West Africa, tomatoes are classified as vegetables, but in the United States, they are classified as fruits. In addition, while potatoes are classified as a vegetable in the United States, they are not in West Africa. Moreover, the cost of the programs varies. The cost of the ESHA food processor software is less expensive and the subscription can be canceled at any time. For NDSR, an initial software license has to be procured making it more expensive. This makes the ESHA food processor more accessible in terms of cost making it affordable for many researchers in Africa. Both programs have the feature to add recipes for composite dishes and to add a new ingredient not found in the database. This feature makes it possible to add new ingredients from other sources like the West African Food Composition database which we used in the present study. The West African food composition table came out in 2012 and was developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in collaboration with the West African Health Organization (WAHO) of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), Bioversity International, and the International Network of Food Data Systems (INFOODs) [28]. It is available at no cost and includes a composition of 472 foods from the Western Africa region [28].

Of note, food composition databases in Africa either do not exist or are not kept up to date. Of the 54 countries in Africa, only 22 have any kind of food composition databases with 9 countries having a national comprehensive food composition database [29]. A systematic review of how dietary data is analyzed in Africa showed that several countries in Africa either lack a country-specific food composition database or do not have an updated one which often results in them using food composition tables available in the region or the global database [9]. Examples of cited databases the systematic review found included the USDA Nutrient Database for Standard Reference and food composition tables developed by Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), such as the West African Food Composition Table [9]. Ghana has no national comprehensive food composition table but has two publications of nutrient composition of some commonly consumed foods [29]. These publications were published in the years 1977 and 1983 and have since not been updated. Similarly, publications available in Togo (1957), Senegal (1961), Cameroon (1966) and Mali (1998) have not been updated since the years they were first published [29]. Nigeria is the only West African country that has a national food composition database which was published in 2019 [29]. The Nigeria Food Database 2019 is an open-access digital platform that is available online. While this is exciting to see for Nigeria, we do need to see it for all West African countries. Although regional and global food composition databases are useful resources to provide estimates of foods and beverages in the absence of a country-specific food composition database, it is imperative that countries have their own up-to-date food composition databases as some nutrients in foods are dependent on soil and feed which varies by region and country.

Our study had several limitations. First, we recognize that the food items, their quantity and frequency of consumption reported by participants may have been influenced by recall bias which is an inherent problem of using the FFQ dietary assessment method. This could have led to underreporting and overreporting of food intakes. Second, because Ghana has no comprehensive national food composition database the USDA food composition database and FAO West African Composition table was used which could be below or above the reported consumed magnesium intake. Third, we had a small sample size and our target population was recruited from a particular region in Ghana which limits generalizability. However, our study has several strengths to note. This is one of the first studies focusing specifically on magnesium intakes of women of reproductive age in Africa. In addition, we estimated magnesium intakes using two dietary analysis programs. Lastly, while we acknowledge the limitations of the FFQ method, we note that our FFQ was comprehensive in capturing magnesium intake because it included both food and dietary supplement sources of magnesium.

Conclusion

This study offers valuable information on the magnesium intake of women of reproductive age in Africa which indicates that the majority are not meeting the RDA for magnesium. This calls for concerted efforts to improve the magnesium intake of women of reproductive age as this would lay the foundation for their productivity as well as for the health of future generations. Although the in our analyses we found that the ESHA software provided an accurate estimate of magnesium in this population because of its inclusion of specific ethnic foods, we would like to emphasize the importance of African countries having their own up-to-date food composition databases.

Supporting information

S1 File. Inclusivity in global research.

(PDF)

S1 Dataset

(XLS)

Acknowledgments

We thank Mr. Isaac Baah Sackitey for his assistance with data collection. We thank all the study participants.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

Supported by startup funding awarded to Brietta Oaks from the University of Rhode Island, USA. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.DiNicolantonio J. J., Liu J., & O’Keefe J. H. (2018). Magnesium for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease. Open heart, 5(2), e000775. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2018-000775 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Zhao B., Zeng L., Zhao J., Wu Q., Dong Y., Zou F., et al. (2020). Association of magnesium intake with type 2 diabetes and total stroke: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ open, 10(3), e032240. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032240 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Zhang X., Li Y., Del Gobbo L. C., Rosanoff A., Wang J., Zhang W., et al. (2016). Effects of magnesium supplementation on blood pressure: a meta-analysis of randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials. Hypertension (Dallas, Tex.: 1979), 68(2), 324–333. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.116.07664 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Fanni D., Gerosa C., Nurchi V. M., Manchia M., Saba L., Coghe F., et al. (2021). The role of magnesium in pregnancy and in fetal programming of adult diseases. Biological trace element research, 199(10), 3647–3657. doi: 10.1007/s12011-020-02513-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.CDC (2019). CDC in Ghana. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/globalhealth/countries/ghana/pdf/Ghana_Factsheet.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Joy E.J.M., Young S.D., Black C.R. et al. Risk of dietary magnesium deficiency is low in most African countries based on food supply data. Plant Soil 368, 129–137 (2013). 10.1007/s11104-012-1388-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Jahnen-Dechent W., & Ketteler M. (2012). Magnesium basics. Clinical Kidney Journal, 5(Suppl 1), i3–i14. doi: 10.1093/ndtplus/sfr163 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Chaudhary D. P., Sharma R., & Bansal D. D. (2010). Implications of magnesium deficiency in type 2 diabetes: a review. Biological trace element research, 134(2), 119–129. doi: 10.1007/s12011-009-8465-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Vila-Real C., Pimenta-Martins A., Gomes A. M., Pinto E., & Maina N. H. (2018). How dietary intake has been assessed in African countries? A systematic review. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 58(6), 1002–1022. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2016.1236778 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Miller P. E., Mitchell D. C., Harala P. L., Pettit J. M., Smiciklas-Wright H., & Hartman T. J. (2011). Development and evaluation of a method for calculating the healthy eating index-2005 using the nutrition data system for research. Public health nutrition, 14(2), 306–313. doi: 10.1017/S1368980010001655 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.UNICEF and World Health Organization (2015). Progress on sanitation and drinking water: 2015 update and MDG assessment. World Health Organization, UNICEF; ISBN: 9 789241 509145. Accessed on October 30th from https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241509145 [Google Scholar]
  • 12.NHANES (2007). Anthropometry procedures manual. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey., no. January, pp. 3-1–3–26, 2007, [Online]. Available: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_07_08/manual_an.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Agbemafle I., Steiner-Asiedu M., SaaliaF K., Setorglo J., Chen J., & Philips R. (2016). Anaemia prevalence and nutrient intake among women in peri-urban settlements in Accra, Ghana. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, 16, 11152–11167. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kumordzie S. M., Okronipa H., Arimond M., Adu-Afarwuah S., Ocansey M. E., Young R. R., et al. (2020). Maternal and child factors associated with child body fatness in a Ghanaian cohort. Public health nutrition, 23(2), 309–318. doi: 10.1017/S1368980019001745 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.GSS and GHS (2014). Ghana demographic health survey 2014. Demographic Health Survey 2014, p. 530, 2015, [Online]. Available: https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR307/FR307.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.van Horn L. V., Stumbo P., Moag-Stahlberg A., Obarzanek E., Hartmuller V. W., Farris R. P., et al. (1993). The Dietary Intervention Study in Children (DISC): dietary assessment methods for 8- to 10-year-olds. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 93(12), 1396–1403. doi: 10.1016/0002-8223(93)92241-o [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Frimpong I. P., Asante M. & Maduforo A. N. (2020). Dietary intake as a cardiovascular risk factor: a cross-sectional study of bank employees in Accra. South African Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 33:2, 44–50, doi: 10.1080/16070658.2018.1515394 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.DiNicolantonio J. J., O’Keefe J. H., & Wilson W. (2018). Subclinical magnesium deficiency: a principal driver of cardiovascular disease and a public health crisis. Open heart, 5(1), e000668. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2017-000668 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ford E. S., & Mokdad A. H. (2003). Dietary magnesium intake in a national sample of US adults. The Journal of nutrition, 133(9), 2879–2882. doi: 10.1093/jn/133.9.2879 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Vormann J, Anke M (2002). Dietary magnesium: supply, requirements and recommendations—results from duplicate and balance studies in man. Journal of Clinical and Basic Cardiology 2002; 5 (1), 49–53 [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bosu W. K. (2015). An overview of the nutrition transition in West Africa: implications for non-communicable diseases. The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 74(4), 466–477. doi: 10.1017/S0029665114001669 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Theophilus R. J., Miller M., Oldewage-Theron W. H., & Dawson J. (2019). The winning weaning food (wwf): the development of a complementary food for food-insecure infants and young children in Malawi. Nutrients, 11(10), 2292. doi: 10.3390/nu11102292 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Pinho-Pompeu M., Paulino D.S., & Surita F.G. (2020). Influence of breakfast and meal frequency in calcium intake among pregnant adolescents. Maternal & Child Nutrition, 16. doi: 10.1111/mcn.13034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Jani R., Coakley K., Douglas T., & Singh R. (2017). Protein intake and physical activity are associated with body composition in individuals with phenylalanine hydroxylase deficiency. Molecular genetics and metabolism, 121(2), 104–110. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2017.04.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Chan R., Wong V. W., Chu W. C., Wong G. L., Li L. S., Leung J., et al. (2015). Higher estimated net endogenous Acid production may be associated with increased prevalence of nonalcoholic Fatty liver disease in Chinese adults in Hong Kong. PloS one, 10(4), e0122406. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122406 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ali H. I., Jarrar A. H., El Sadig M., & B Yeatts K. (2013). Diet and carbohydrate food knowledge of multi-ethnic women: a comparative analysis of pregnant women with and without Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. PloS one, 8(9), e73486. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073486 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.He J., Votruba S., Pomeroy J., Bonfiglio S., & Krakoff J. (2012). Measurement of ad libitum food intake, physical activity, and sedentary time in response to overfeeding. PloS one, 7(5), e36225. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036225 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.FAO (2014). Table de composition des aliments d´Afrique de l´Ouest West African Food Composition Table. Food and Agriculture Organization [Google Scholar]
  • 29.International Network of Food Data Systems, Definitions, p. 2021, 2020, doi: 10.32388/llq3yu [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Linglin Xie

26 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-23183Dietary magnesium intake among women of reproductive age in Ghana - A comparison of two dietary analysis programsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bentil,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 10 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Linglin Xie

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"Supported by startup funding awarded to Brietta Oaks from the University of Rhode Island, USA"

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. 

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

5. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

6. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 2 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Reviewer’s results for the article of PONE-D-22-23183

Major comments

This is the article studying daily magnesium intake using different two methods of FFQ. The authors showed that one of the methods seems better to that of another. In ither words, ESHA seems superior to NDSR because ESHA involves West African Food database for magnesium. However, my concern is that in the methods part, the authors state that the magnesium content of specific Ghanaian foods not available in either ESHA or NDSR were obtained from the Food and Agriculture Organization West African Food Composition table (lines 146 – 8). From this description, magnesium content could be obtained both to ESHA and NDSR. If so, if the responder responded food A which is not involved both, the authors could obtain magnesium content to both and there might not be different between ESHA and NDSR.

The other small concerns are as the follows:

1. the readers could not understand which foods are related with magnesium intake. In the other words, there are no descriptions which food are more frequently taken to explain to magnesium intake are more. To explain this, the authors must show the relationship of most of daily magnesium intakes as nutrient with food which had taken most.

2. No information of frequencies of foods intakes to explain magnesium intake.

3. The authors showed that daily magnesium intake using ESHA and NDSR were significantly different, but as far as the figure 2 and standard deviation (SD) of both described in the article in lines 179 and 180, the difference between the two is not seen significant different because of large SDs of them.

4. No information of pregnancy outcomes with magnesium deficiency is described because the outcome of magnesium deficiency must be critical issue in this article. For resolve this, the authors must show the relationship between magnesium deficiency and pregnancy adverse outcomes using the objective outcome parameters.

The authors must describe the matters to the abovementioned issues. Then, this article might be accepted after the further reviewing.

Minor comments

1. The tables to show the relationships between daily intake of foods and magnesium to explain which foods are most to contribute to magnesium deficiencies.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 May 2;18(5):e0284648. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284648.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


6 Mar 2023

Response to editor’s comments

1. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

[Supported by startup funding awarded to Brietta Oaks from the University of Rhode Island, USA].

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

2. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section.

This has been deleted.

3. Please note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

This has been deleted.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to comments_18Feb23.docx

Decision Letter 1

Linglin Xie

5 Apr 2023

Dietary magnesium intakes among women of reproductive age in Ghana - A comparison of two dietary analysis programs

PONE-D-22-23183R1

Dear Dr. Bentil,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Linglin Xie

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Major comments

This is the article to show an accuracy of novel developed software (ESHA) to analyze daily intake of magnesium using gold standard of NDSR. The authors showed its usefulness because of including ethnic foods in ESHA. However, ESHA could not utilized for the other ethnicities and it must be limitation of ESHA. However, this article could show the availability of novel developed software for analysis of ethnic foods in the world.

As the result, this could be accepted for readers in worldwide.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Linglin Xie

24 Apr 2023

PONE-D-22-23183R1

Dietary magnesium intakes among women of reproductive age in Ghana - A comparison of two dietary analysis programs

Dear Dr. Bentil:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Linglin Xie

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Inclusivity in global research.

    (PDF)

    S1 Dataset

    (XLS)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to comments_18Feb23.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES