ReviewCureus2025
Comparing the Treatment Outcomes of Oral and Injectable Iron Therapies for Anemia in Pregnancy: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- KDIGO 2026 Clinical Practice Guideline for Anemia in Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD): a commentary from the European Renal Best Practice (ERBP).Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association · 2026Article
- Comparative study of oral iron and intravenous iron therapy in pregnancy induced anemia.Bioinformation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) during pregnancy is a global public health concern, associated with significant maternal and neonatal complications. Intravenous (IV) iron therapy has emerged as a potential alternative to oral iron for rapid correction of anemia, but its impact on clinical outcomes remains unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IV iron compared to oral iron in improving maternal and neonatal outcomes during pregnancy. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted using major databases. A total of 15 studies, involving 4,215 pregnant women, met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were performed to assess maternal and neonatal complications, adverse events, and hemoglobin (Hb) improvement. The findings demonstrated that IV iron therapy significantly improved Hb levels more rapidly than oral iron, with a mean rise of 2.05 g/dL for IV iron compared to 1.65 g/dL for oral iron. Women receiving IV iron experienced 21% fewer maternal complications, although the difference was not statistically significant for individual complications. Neonatal outcomes, including birth weight, cord Hb levels, and preterm births, showed no significant differences between the two groups. Adverse events were significantly less frequent in the IV group (OR 0.38; 95% CI: 0.24-0.58; p < 0.01), indicating a better safety profile. This study highlights the superior efficacy of IV iron for rapid anemia correction and reduced adverse events in pregnant women. However, no significant advantage was observed for neonatal outcomes or individual maternal complications. The evidence quality for Hb improvement was high, while that for maternal and neonatal clinical outcomes varied from moderate to low. Further research is needed to explore the impact of IV iron on critical clinical outcomes and to determine the most cost-effective regimens for anemia management during pregnancy.
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.