ReviewJGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology2025
Intravenous Versus Oral Iron After Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology, 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.
- The Significance of Hypophosphatemia in Deciding on an Optimal Clinical Choice of Parenteral Iron Therapy in Patients with Chronic Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Slovenia: An Umbrella Review and Economic Evaluation.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Intravenous Versus Oral Iron After Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & Objective: Few trials have compared the efficacy of intravenous (IV) iron repletion to oral repletion for patients with gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). We aim to guide clinical decision-making and optimize treatment strategies through the findings from these studies to provide a step closer to a consensus on the most effective approach to iron supplementation for patients with GIB. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) obtained from PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to April 2024. We used the fixed-effects model to report dichotomous outcomes using risk ratio (RR) and continuous outcomes using mean difference (MD), with a 95% confidence interval (CI). PROSPERO ID: CRD42024542759. Results: Three RCTs that included 254 patients were included. IV iron was significantly associated with increased complete response (RR: 1.60 with 95% CI [1.24, 2.07], Conclusion: With uncertain evidence, IV iron demonstrated increased hemoglobin and ferritin concentrations and achieved complete response rates in patients with GIB.
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.