ArticleAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2012
Targeted provision of oral iron: the evolution of a practical screening option.
Article in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Iron deficiency and anemia control for infants and young children in malaria-endemic areas: a call to action and consensus among the research community.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2012Article
- Safety of universal provision of iron through home fortification of complementary foods in malaria-endemic areas.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2012Article
- Iron and malaria interactions: programmatic ways forward.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2012Article
- Iron and malaria interactions: research needs from basic science to global policy.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Universal oral iron supplementation, undertaken according to 1998 WHO guidelines, produced adverse consequences among some children in malaria-endemic areas. Prompted by the Pemba trial, which revealed excessive hospitalizations and deaths, WHO advised that iron supplementation in such regions be accompanied by previous screening for iron deficiency. This agenda, however, poses issues of cost, benefit, acceptability, technical feasibility, and reliability of such screening. The cost of equipment and personnel is balanced against savings from iron supplements spared and treatment for morbidity averted. Costs aside, the most efficacious acceptable screening approach for avoiding hospitalization and deaths must be fielded. Screening before supplementation can be used to assess hematological, iron, and possible inflammatory status to differentiate the source of decreased hemoglobin concentration. Iron deficiency has often been inferred from hematological status markers. The need for extraction of blood, albeit capillary in origin, and high assay costs limit the use of validated methods in screening. Noninvasive methods, i.e., not requiring the extraction of blood, provide the most acceptable and potentially least expensive approach for determining hematological or iron status. Although a noninvasive technique for iron and inflammatory status would be the ideal, it is unattained. Field-friendly, skin-probe hemoglobin devices, derived from instruments for clinical settings, are being developed and tested for eventual rollout in malarial areas. Given a firm grounding for the theoretical requirements needed to advance the screening agenda, evaluation and monitoring of the performance of screening devices can proceed hand in hand.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.