Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40830435›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025

The clinical impact of oral iron treatment for anaemia in pregnancy in accordance with current guidance: a prospective cohort study in a maternity unit in the Midlands of England.

David Churchill, Hind Ali, Samaher Sweity, Dianne Bautista, Mahmoud Moussa, Laura Devison, Julie Icke, Simon J Stanworth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

David ChurchillThe Royal Wolverhampton Hospital NHS Trust, New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton, WV10 0QP, UK. david.churchill1@nhs.net.
Hind AliThe Royal Wolverhampton Hospital NHS Trust, New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton, WV10 0QP, UK.
Samaher SweityNHS Blood and Transplant Service, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Dianne BautistaNHS Blood and Transplant Service, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Mahmoud MoussaGreat Western Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Swindon, UK.
Laura DevisonThe Royal Wolverhampton Hospital NHS Trust, New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton, WV10 0QP, UK.
Julie IckeThe Royal Wolverhampton Hospital NHS Trust, New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton, WV10 0QP, UK.
Simon J StanworthNHS Blood and Transplant Service, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIron deficiency anaemia is a common disorder affecting up to 30% of pregnant women. Treatment guidelines for iron deficiency anaemia in pregnancy exist, which if adopted, may reduce the associated risks of maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. However, multiple factors may impair adherence and absorption of oral iron, limiting the success of this first-line treatment.

methodsTo document the effectiveness of national (British Society of Haematology) guidelines for the treatment of iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) in pregnancy, with a focus on use of oral iron, we carried out a prospective cohort study. Aims were to assess the response, side effect and adherence to treatment and predictability of response using routine clinical and laboratory data. The study population consisted of pregnant women diagnosed with anaemia. Women were offered follow-up through a dedicated anaemia clinic in a secondary care maternity unit serving a multi-ethnic population in the midlands of England. First line treatment was ferrous sulphate 200 mg three time a day as recommended in earlier national guidelines. The response was assessed 2 to 4 weeks later by measuring the haemoglobin (Hb) concentration. A response was defined in 2 ways; (i) a 10 g/L increase in Hb; and (ii) a 10 g/L increase in Hb and/or gestationally adjusted threshold of the Hb. Education and advice were provided to women, with on-going follow-up at clinic appointments including an assessment of side effects. Following a response with oral iron, treatment was continued for a further 3 months when the women were again reviewed.

resultsThe overall rate of haematological response to a first course of oral iron was 36.5% (10 g/L increase in Hb) and 55.2% (incorporating gestational threshold in Hb). The response rates at the completion of follow up, post-delivery, were 70.5% and 88.5% respectively. Responders to oral iron had lower median Hb at diagnosis (95 g/L) compared to non-responders (100 g/L). The responders median Hb was 113 g/l versus 103 g/L for non-responders at first follow-up and was Hb 122 g/L versus 110 g/L, respectively, at the end of the study visit 5. There is a statistically significant difference between responders and non-responders for the change in haemoglobin from baseline to visit 5 (p = 0.017). Non-responders reported more side effects than responders (95% versus 85%).

conclusionOral iron treatment for IDA in pregnancy as advocated in national guidelines is challenging to deliver, even in the setting of a specialist anaemia clinic. The findings have implications for guideline recommendations and implementation, and identify research opportunities for diagnosing IDA in pregnancy, optimising the pathways of iron treatment.

Indexed as

Anemia, Iron-DeficiencyFerrous CompoundsGuideline AdherencePregnancy Complications, HematologicAdministration, OralAdultEnglandFemaleHemoglobinsHumansIronPractice Guidelines as TopicPregnancyProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultFerrous Compoundsferrous sulfateHemoglobinsIronAdherenceAnaemiaDiagnosisIronPredictionResponse

Identifiers

PMID40830435
PMCPMC12366138

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.