ArticlePLOS global public health2022
Prevalence and determinants of anaemia among men in rural India: Evidence from a nationally representative survey.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of anemia in India: a systematic review, meta-analysis and geospatial analysis.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Socio-Epidemiological Correlates of Anemia Among Non-Pregnant Females of East and West Uttar Pradesh, India: A NFHS-5 Secondary Data Analysis Highlighting the Need for Precision Public Policy.Public health challenges · 2025Article
- Anaemia among lactating adolescents (15-19 years) in India: a repeated cross-sectional analysis of the NFHS data (2005-2021).BMC public health · 2024Article
- Anaemia in India and Its Prevalence and Multifactorial Aetiology: A Narrative Review.Nutrients · 2024Review
- A district-level geospatial analysis of anaemia prevalence among rural men in India, 2019-21.International journal for equity in health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anaemia among men is a significant health issue which has not been given due importance. Only a handful of studies have captured the prevalence of anaemia among men. There is dearth of evidence base on anaemia among men in India. Therefore, this study attempts to fill this research gap by examining the socioeconomic, geographic, health-related, and behavioural differentials of anaemia among rural men in India. We analysed a cross-sectional sample of 61,481 men aged between 15-54 and living in rural areas from the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5), conducted in 2019-21. Bivariate statistics and multivariable logistic regression were employed to assess the factors associated with anaemia. In rural India, three out of ten men were found to be anaemic. Older men [49-54 years] (Odds Ratio: 1.10, 95% CI, 1.00-1.21), men without a formal education (OR: 1.36, 95% CI, 1.26-1.47), those from Scheduled Tribes (OR: 1.48, 95% CI, 1.39-1.58) and men who belonged to the poorest wealth quintile (OR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.25-1.35) had a higher risk of anaemia. Men who were underweight were more likely to be anaemic (OR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.30-1.43). When compared to the central region, men from the eastern (OR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.39-1.55) parts of India had higher a risk of anaemia. The findings suggest the need to recognise anaemia among men as a public health issue. When developing policy, significant variation in socioeconomic, geographic, health-related, and behavioural factors must be taken into account. Men should also be screened on a regular basis in order to reduce the national burden of anaemia.
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.