ArticleTrials2024
Haem iron versus ferrous iron salts to treat iron deficiency anaemia in Gambian children: protocol for randomised controlled trial {1}.
Article in Trials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparative analysis of heme vs non-heme iron administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European journal of nutrition · 2024Pooled it
- Heme iron compared with ferrous iron salts to treat iron deficiency anemia in Gambian children: a randomized controlled trial.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2025Trial
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe World Health Organization recommends universal iron supplementation for children aged 6-23 months in countries where anaemia is seen in over 40% of the population. Conventional ferrous salts have low efficacy due to low oral absorption in children with inflammation. Haem iron is more bioavailable, and its absorption may not be decreased by inflammation. This study aims to compare daily supplementation with haem iron versus ferrous sulphate on haemoglobin concentration and serum ferritin concentration after 12 weeks of supplementation.
methodsThis will be a two-arm, randomised controlled trial. Gambian children aged 6-12 months with anaemia will be recruited within a predefined geographical area and recruited by trained field workers. Eligible participants will be individually randomised using a 1:1 ratio within permuted blocks to daily supplementation for 12 weeks with either 10.0 mg of elemental iron as haem or ferrous sulphate. Safety outcomes such as diarrhoea and infection-related adverse events will be assessed daily by the clinical team (see Bah et al. Additional file 4_Adverse event eCRF). Linear regression will be used to analyse continuous outcomes, with log transformation to normalise residuals as needed. Binary outcomes will be analysed by binomial regression or logistic regression, Primary analysis will be by modified intention-to-treat (i.e., those randomised and who ingested at least one supplement dose of iron), with multiple imputations to replace missing data. Effect estimates will be adjusted for baseline covariates (C-reactive protein, alpha-1-acid glycoprotein, haemoglobin, ferritin, soluble transferrin receptor). DISCUSSION: This study will determine if therapeutic supplementation with haem iron is more efficacious than with conventional ferrous sulphate in enhancing haemoglobin and ferritin concentrations in anaemic children aged 6-12 months.
trial registrationPan African Clinical Trial Registry PACTR202210523178727.
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.