ArticleCureus2023
Prevalence and Predictors of Anaemia Among Women of Reproductive Age in South and Southeast Asia.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Do disempowered bodies risk anaemia? Evidence from married women in Assam's Sixth Schedule areas of Northeast India.Global health action · 2026Article
- Estimating the risk of anemia associated with PMCommunications medicine · 2026Article
- Adaptations for Urogynecologic Surgery in Limited-Resource Settings: How to Do More with Less.International urogynecology journal · 2025Review
- Exposure to gender-based violence and the risk of hypertension, obesity, and anemia: a multilevel analysis of the 2017 Tajikistan demographic and health survey.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Understanding systemic barriers to blood donation for people of South Asian ancestry: A qualitative study.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Association between blood hemoglobin levels, anemia, and body mass index in children and women of Myanmar: findings from a nationally representative health study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Global burden of anemia and cause among children under five years 1990-2019: findings from the global burden of disease study 2019.Frontiers in nutrition · 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
1 author at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Anaemia is a global public health issue that mostly affects children, women, and adults in low- and middle-income countries. Aim This study sought to evaluate the prevalence of anaemia and its contributing factors among South and Southeast Asian (SSEA) women of reproductive age. Methods Data analysis was undertaken utilising data from 10 SSEA countries' Demographic and Health Surveys. The link between anaemia and independent variables was established using a multivariate logistic regression model with a 95% confidence interval. To investigate the relationship between explanatory variables and anaemia, the Pearson's correlations test was carried out. Results In SSEA, the prevalence of anaemia among women (15-49 years old) was 50.17% (95% CI: 39.4, 61.0), ranging from 13.3% (95% CI: 2.5, 24.1) in the Philippines to 70.3% (95% CI: 59.5, 81.1) in Nepal. Being younger, having rural residents, having lower educational attainment, and being in households with lower wealth quantiles were linked to a higher prevalence of anaemia in most countries. Conclusion The findings of this study imply that a variety of individual characteristics play a role in the higher risk of anaemia. To combat anaemia, evidence-based, multidisciplinary policies and initiatives targeting women's health and nutrition, as well as scaling up women's education, empowerment, and socioeconomic position, are needed.
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.