Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33148203›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2020

The use of intravenous iron in pregnancy: for whom and when? A survey of Australian and New Zealand obstetricians.

Sarah Smith-Wade, Giselle Kidson-Gerber, Antonia Shand, Luke Grzeskowiak, Amanda Henry

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah Smith-WadeSchool of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7753-5810
Giselle Kidson-GerberSchool of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW, Australia.
Antonia ShandSchool of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW, Australia.
Luke GrzeskowiakAdelaide Medical School, Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Amanda HenrySchool of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW, Australia. amanda.henry@unsw.edu.au.
UNSW Sydney · AUFlinders Medical Centre · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIron deficiency anaemia in pregnancy (IDAP) affects 11-18% of Australian pregnancies and is associated with adverse perinatal outcomes. National prescribing data suggests the use of intravenous iron in pregnancy is increasingly common. This study aimed to: 1) Establish the current patterns of intravenous iron use by Fellows of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians (FRANZCOG) when treating iron deficiency and IDAP including immediately postpartum and; 2) Assess FRANZCOG opinions regarding potential trial of intravenous iron for first-line treatment of IDAP.

methodsAn online survey of RANZCOG Fellows practicing obstetrics was distributed in September 2018. Results were analysed descriptively and responses compared by clinician demographics using Chi-squared testing.

resultsOf 484 respondents (21% of FRANZCOG), 457 were currently practicing obstetrics. Most prescribed intravenous iron in pregnancy (96%) and/or postpartum (85%). Most intravenous iron was prescribed for IDAP (98%) rather than iron deficiency without anaemia (53%), and for IDAP most commonly second-line to failed oral iron supplementation and first-line in special circumstances (59%). Intravenous iron prescribing was associated with shorter time since FRANZCOG completion (p = 0.01), public hospital practice (p = 0.008) and higher hospital birth numbers (p = 0.01). Most respondents (90%) would consider a randomised controlled trial of first-line intravenous iron for IDAP, although views on appropriate thresholds differed.

conclusionsAlmost all respondents prescribed intravenous iron for IDAP, and while mostly used for second-line treatment over half sometimes used it first-line. With accelerating intravenous iron use, further research is required into its optimal use in pregnancy, recognizing important clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness.

Indexed as

Administration, OralAnemia, Iron-DeficiencyAustraliaCost-Benefit AnalysisDrug PrescriptionsFemaleFerric CompoundsHematinicsHumansInfusions, IntravenousIronIron DeficienciesMedication AdherenceNew ZealandObstetricsPostpartum PeriodFerric CompoundsHematinicsIron

Identifiers

PMID33148203
PMCPMC7640437
OpenAlexW3096568819

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.