Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34171281›Full record

SynthesisThe Lancet. Haematology2021

Iron preparations for women of reproductive age with iron deficiency anaemia in pregnancy (FRIDA): a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Ewelina Rogozińska, Jahnavi Daru, Marios Nicolaides, Carmen Amezcua-Prieto, Susan Robinson, Rui Wang, Peter J Godolphin, Carlos Martín Saborido, Javier Zamora, Khalid S Khan and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Lancet. Haematology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Observational
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Data integrity of 14 randomised controlled trials.European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology · 2024
    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

11 authors at 9 institutions in 3 countries.

Ewelina RogozińskaMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London, London, UK.
Jahnavi DaruInstitute for Population Health Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. Electronic address: j.daru@qmul.ac.uk.
Marios NicolaidesBarts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Carmen Amezcua-PrietoDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Susan RobinsonDepartment of Haematology, Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK.
Rui WangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Peter J GodolphinMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London, London, UK.
Carlos Martín SaboridoDepartment of Health Planning and Economics, National School of Public Health, Institute of Health Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.
Javier ZamoraInstitute of Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal (IRYCIS), CIBERESP, Madrid, Spain.
Khalid S KhanDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Shakila ThangaratinamInstitute of Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Queen Mary University of London · GBUniversidad de Granada · ESHospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal · ESInstituto de Salud Carlos III · ESMonash University · AUMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL · GBSt Thomas' Hospital · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00004/06Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/24
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNumerous iron preparations are available for the treatment of iron deficiency anaemia in pregnancy. We aimed to provide a summary of the effectiveness and safety of iron preparations used in this setting.

methodsWe did a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registers, and grey literature for trials published in any language from Jan 1, 2011, to Feb 28, 2021. We included trials including pregnant women with iron deficiency anaemia and evaluating iron preparations, irrespective of administration route, with at least 60 mg of elemental iron, in comparison with another iron or non-iron preparation. Three authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and did a risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane tool (version 1.0). The primary outcome was the effectiveness of iron preparations, evaluated by changes in haemoglobin concentration at 4 weeks from baseline. The secondary outcomes were change in serum ferritin concentration at 4 weeks from baseline and treatment-related severe and non-severe adverse events. We did random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses. Side-effects were reported descriptively for each trial. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018100822.

findingsAmong 3037 records screened, 128 full-text articles were further assessed for eligibility. Of the 53 eligible trials (reporting on 9145 women), 30 (15 interventions; 3243 women) contributed data to the network meta-analysis for haemoglobin and 15 (nine interventions; 1396 women) for serum ferritin. The risk of bias varied across the trials contributing to network meta-analysis, with 22 of 30 trials in the network meta-analysis for haemoglobin judged to have a high or medium global risk of bias. Compared with oral ferrous sulfate, intravenous iron sucrose improved both haemoglobin (mean difference 7·17 g/L, 95% CI 2·62-11·73; seven trials) and serum ferritin (mean difference 49·66 μg/L, 13·63-85·69; four trials), and intravenous ferric carboxymaltose improved haemoglobin (mean difference 8·52 g/L, 0·51-16·53; one trial). The evidence for other interventions compared with ferrous sulfate was insufficient. The most common side-effects with oral iron preparations were gastrointestinal effects (nausea, vomiting, and altered bowel movements). Side-effects were less common with parenteral iron preparations, although these included local pain, skin irratation, and, on rare occasions, allergic reactions.

interpretationIron preparations for treatment of iron deficiency anaemia in pregnancy vary in effectiveness, with good evidence of benefit for intravenous iron sucrose and some evidence for intravenous ferric carboxymaltose. Clinicians and policy makers should consider the effectiveness of individual preparations before administration, to ensure effective treatment.

fundingNone.

Indexed as

Anemia, Iron-DeficiencyFemaleFerric CompoundsFerric Oxide, SaccharatedFerritinsFerrous CompoundsHemoglobinsHumansMaltoseNauseaPregnancyferric carboxymaltoseFerric CompoundsFerric Oxide, SaccharatedFerritinsFerrous Compoundsferrous sulfateHemoglobinsMaltose

Identifiers

PMID34171281
PMCPMC7612251
OpenAlexW3176175159

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.