SynthesisBMC pharmacology & toxicology2025
Efficacy of daily versus alternate day oral iron supplementation for management of anaemia among general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC pharmacology & toxicology, 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.
- Nonlinear dose-response relationship between serum ferritin and anemia in Chinese children: a matched case-control study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Daily versus alternate-day oral iron in women with iron deficiency anemia: impact of dosing schedule and adherence on hemoglobin recovery.Frontiers in nutrition · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIron deficiency anemia (IDA) remains a prevalent global health issue. While oral iron therapy is the first-line treatment, the optimal dosing strategy-daily versus alternate-day-remains debated, especially for general population use. Therefore, this review aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of daily versus alternate-day oral iron supplementation for IDA in the general population.
methodsSearches were conducted across major databases through March 2025. Risk of bias was evaluated utilizing the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and the certainty of evidence was graded using GRADE. The primary outcome was change in hemoglobin concentration; secondary outcomes included serum iron, ferritin, transferrin saturation, TIBC, MCV, and adverse events. R Studio software, version 4.2.3, and RevMan used for all analyses.
resultsThis SRMA (systematic review and meta-analysis) included 11 RCTs involving 1014 participants. The pooled analysis found a small, statistically non-significant increase in hemoglobin with daily dosing over alternate-day (MD: 0.28, 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.56, p = 0.06, z = 1.91). Secondary outcomes revealed no significant differences among groups for serum iron, ferritin, transferrin saturation, TIBC, and MCV. Adverse effects were similar between groups (RR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.34), though metallic taste was more frequent with daily dosing. Risk of bias was low to moderate across studies. Certainty of evidence was rated very low for most outcomes due to heterogeneity and imprecision.
conclusionBoth daily and alternate-day oral iron supplementation are comparably effective for treating IDA, with alternate-day dosing showing better tolerability. Due to low certainty in evidence, treatment decisions should be individualized pending further high-quality research. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.