ArticleCureus2025
Liposomal Iron vs. Conventional Iron in the Treatment of Iron Deficiency Anemia in Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Iron Deficiency in Endocrine Diseases and the Therapeutic Role of Liposomal Iron: A Comprehensive Review.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Surface modification strategies of oral liposomes: functional design and barrier enhancement.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDespite their established efficacy, gastrointestinal adverse effects of ferrous iron lead to reduced acceptability, poor adherence to treatment, and the persistence of iron deficiency anemia (IDA). Liposomal iron is characterized by high bioavailability, reduced side effects, and improved compliance, making it appropriate for patients requiring iron supplementation. Hence, there is a need to compare conventional iron (ferrous ascorbate) with liposomal iron employed for the treatment of IDA in children. AIMS AND
objectivesThe study aimed to compare the effectiveness and tolerability of liposomal iron with conventional elemental iron (ferrous ascorbate) in improving hemoglobin levels and iron indices among children aged 6-60 months with IDA. METHODOLOGY: The study was conducted between June and September 2024 at SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Centre in Tamil Nadu, India. Children aged 6-60 months with confirmed IDA, not receiving any iron supplementation for three months prior to study inclusion, and with no other hematological disorders or active infections were included. A total of 98 children were included and allocated into two groups of 49 each. Group A was treated with liposomal iron (1 mg/kg/day), and Group B with ferrous ascorbate (3 mg/kg/day) for one month. The response to treatment in both groups was assessed. Statistical analysis was done using the chi-square test and the t-test.
resultsBaseline characteristics were similar. The mean base hemoglobin in Group A was 8.4 g/dL, and that in Group B was 8.3 g/dL. After one month of iron supplementation, the mean hemoglobin only rose to 8.5 g/dL in Group A but to 9.3 g/dL in Group B. The difference in the rise of hemoglobin between Group A and Group B was significant (p=0.0018). Liposomal iron had adequate oral tolerance (p=0.042), better adherence (p=0.047), and a lesser incidence of constipation (p=0.046).
conclusionDespite poor oral tolerability, poor adherence, and a higher incidence of constipation, ferrous ascorbate was found to be superior compared to liposomal iron in treating children with IDA.
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.