Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24482777›Full record

ArticleScientia pharmaceutica

Comparison study of oral iron preparations using a human intestinal model.

Mohammed Gulrez Zariwala, Satyanarayana Somavarapu, Sebastien Farnaud, Derek Renshaw

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientia pharmaceutica. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Nanotechnology for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia: an in vivo review.Biometals : an international journal on the role of metal ions in biology, biochemistry, and medicine · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Refining Treatment Strategies for Iron Deficient Athletes.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2020
    Review
  15. Article
  16. National Iron Plus Initiative: Current status & future strategy.The Indian journal of medical research · 2019
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mohammed Gulrez ZariwalaDepartment of Human & Health Sciences, School of Life Sciences, University of Westminster, 115 New Cavendish Street, London, W1W 6UW, UK.
Satyanarayana SomavarapuDepartment of Pharmaceutics, UCL School of Pharmacy, 29-39 Brunswick Square, London, WC1N 1AX, UK.
Sebastien FarnaudDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Bedfordshire, Park Square, Luton, LU1 3JU, UK.
Derek RenshawDepartment of Human & Health Sciences, School of Life Sciences, University of Westminster, 115 New Cavendish Street, London, W1W 6UW, UK.
University of Westminster · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Iron deficiency and related iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) are the most prevalent nutritional disorders worldwide. The standard treatment involves supplementation with solid or liquid iron supplement preparations, usually based on a ferrous salt such as ferrous sulphate, ferrous fumarate, or ferrous gluconate. In the present study, we compared iron uptake and absorption from various solid and liquid iron supplement preparations currently available in the United Kingdom using the well-characterised human epithelial adenocarcinoma cell line Caco-2. Intracellular ferritin protein formation by the Caco-2 cell was considered an indicator of cellular iron uptake and absorption. We investigated the effects of formulation ingredients at a defined pH on iron uptake and absorption, and designed a novel two-stage dissolution-absorption protocol that mimicked physiological conditions. Our experiments revealed wide variations in the rate of dissolution between the various solid iron preparations. Conventional-release ferrous iron tablets dissolved rapidly (48 ± 4 mins to 64 ± 4 mins), whereas modified-released tablets and capsules took significantly longer to undergo complete dissolution (274 ± 8 to 256 ± 8 mins). Among the solid iron preparations, ferrous sulphate conventional-release tablets demonstrated the highest iron absorption, whereas modified-release ferrous preparations demonstrated uniformly low iron absorption, as compared to the control (P < 0.05). Taken together, our results demonstrate that there are wide-ranging variations in dissolution times and iron uptake from oral iron preparations, with the physical characteristics of the preparation as well as the form of iron playing a key role.

Indexed as

AnaemiaCaco-2DissolutionFerritinIron Supplements

Identifiers

PMID24482777
PMCPMC3867244
OpenAlexW2144000653

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.