ReviewCureus2025
Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Versus Oral Iron in Treating Maternal Anaemia During Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Maternal anaemia is a major global health issue linked to adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes; while oral iron is widely used, its gastrointestinal side effects limit adherence, and intravenous (IV) formulations may offer faster correction with better tolerability. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis at a tertiary academic centre (January-June 2024) of studies published from January 2015 to January 2025, searching PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing IV with oral iron in anaemic pregnant women. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (cohorts) and the Cochrane tool (RCTs). Random-effects models yielded pooled mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Six studies (n = 3,842) were included. IV iron increased maternal haemoglobin versus oral iron (MD +1.21 g/dL; 95% CI 0.83-1.59; p < 0.001) and improved anaemia correction (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.69-3.61; p < 0.001). Neonatal outcomes did not differ significantly, though mean birthweight tended to be higher with IV iron, and adverse events - particularly gastrointestinal symptoms - were fewer. Overall, IV iron, especially ferric carboxymaltose and iron sucrose, appears more effective and well-tolerated than oral iron; larger trials are needed to clarify long-term maternal and neonatal benefits.
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.