ArticleBMJ public health2025
Testing and treating anaemia in pregnant women in Bangladesh: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in BMJ public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Anaemia during pregnancy is a significant public health problem, disproportionately affecting women in low-and middle-income countries. In Bangladesh, anaemia affects 38.6% of pregnant women. Although much is known about the prevention of anaemia in pregnancy, it is unknown how women are tested and treated. This study therefore aimed to describe how pregnant women in Bangladesh are tested for anaemia, including variations by social and equity dimensions. We also aimed to explore how women are treated for anaemia and use of intravenous iron in pregnancy. Methods: An interviewer-administered cross-sectional survey was conducted in Narayanganj district, Bangladesh, with analysis limited to women who had previously been pregnant (n=1000). Outcomes of interest were anaemia testing, anaemia treatment, and intravenous iron use. We undertook descriptive analyses and derived estimates and 95% confidence intervals of the percentage of pregnant women tested for anaemia stratified by education, wealth, and person making decisions around women's healthcare. Results: Approximately half of women were tested for anaemia in their previous pregnancy (505/963, 52.4%), with lower testing in women with no education (15.8%, 95% CI: 6.0 to 31.3), whose husband had no education (25.6%, 95% CI: 18.2 to 34.2), or in the poorest wealth quintile (34.0%, 95% CI: 27.4 to 41.2). Pregnant women were most commonly tested for anaemia at a private health facility (393/505, 77.8%), by a medical technologist (350/505, 69.3%), using venous full blood count (484/505, 95.8%). Most women diagnosed with anaemia in their previous pregnancy received treatment (135/142, 95.1%). In any prior pregnancies, a small number of women received intravenous iron (33/985, 3.4%). Conclusion: Our study reveals the need for substantial investments to ensure all women in Bangladesh are tested for anaemia in pregnancy. This could be achieved through increasing point-of-care testing in antenatal care. However, health facilities and health workers may need to be prepared for an increase in women diagnosed with anaemia.
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.