ArticleThe Journal of nutrition2025
Exploring the Use of Iron and Hematologic Indicators for Surveillance of Iron Deficiency in Pregnant and Nonpregnant Women in the United States.
Article in The Journal of nutrition, 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.
- Biological Aging Mediates the Associations Between Multiple Serum Micronutrients and All-Cause Mortality Among U.S. Adults.Biological trace element research · 2026Article
- Probiotics and iron bioavailability: mechanisms, clinical evidence, and translational applications-a comprehensive review of the probiotic strainFrontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical data, such as electronic health records, may be useful for iron deficiency (ID) surveillance.
objectiveOur objective was to compare iron and hematologic indicators commonly measured in clinical settings to the World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended iron indicator, serum ferritin (SF), to assess ID among a population of adult women aged 20-44 y.
methodsWe evaluated sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve of iron and hematologic indicators commonly measured in clinical settings for ID: hemoglobin (Hb) <120 g/L (nonpregnant), Hb <110 g/L or <105 g/L (pregnant, depending on trimester); mean corpuscular volume (MCV) <80 fL; serum iron <40 μg/dL; total iron binding capacity (TIBC) >400 μg/dL; transferrin saturation (TSAT) <15%, compared with a reference (SF <30 μg/L for pregnant women and inflammation-adjusted SF <15 μg/L for nonpregnant women) using the United States NHANES 2003-2006 and 2017-2018.
resultsAmong pregnant women (n = 730), sensitivity ranged from 8.1% (MCV) to 87.2% (TIBC), and specificity ranged from 63.0% (TIBC) to 97.5% (MCV), and area under the ROC curve ranged from 0.553 (MCV) to 0.816 (TIBC). Among nonpregnant women (n = 3345), sensitivity ranged from 32.1% (MCV) to 71.9% (TSAT), specificity ranged from 85.7% (TIBC) to 96.1% (Hb), and area under the ROC curve ranged from 0.785 (MCV) to 0.853 (TSAT). ID prevalence using clinical indicators varied widely compared with prevalence using SF. Among pregnant women, ID prevalence ranged from 6.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.6, 9.7) (MCV) to 51.8% (95% CI: 46.0, 57.5) (TIBC), compared with 47.0% (95% CI: 39.5, 54.5) using SF. Among nonpregnant women, prevalence of ID using clinical indicators ranged from 6.4% (95% CI: 5.4, 7.3) (MCV) to 24.7% (95% CI: 22.4, 26.9) (TSAT), compared with 15.1% (95% CI: 13.4, 16.6) using SF.
conclusionsIron and hematologic indicators routinely used in clinical settings can under- or overestimate ID, suggesting that they are not ideal for ID surveillance.
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.