ReviewCureus2025
Comparing the Efficacy of Intravenous Versus Oral Iron Supplementation for Anemic Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is a frequent complication in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) and adversely affects patient outcomes and quality of life. Oral iron supplementation is widely used but can be poorly tolerated and less effective during active inflammation. Intravenous (IV) iron supplementation bypasses intestinal absorption barriers, but its comparative efficacy in IBD remains under debate. This study aims to compare the efficacy of IV versus oral iron supplementation in achieving effective hemoglobin increases in patients with IBD-associated anemia. A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Medline, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar was conducted up to March 2022, yielding 711 records. After removing duplicates and applying inclusion criteria, seven studies (six randomized controlled trials and one prospective study), involving 1,029 patients, were included. Data were pooled using a fixed-effects model to calculate odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a clinically meaningful hemoglobin increase. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic, and publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots. Across the seven included studies, IV iron supplementation was significantly more effective than oral iron in increasing hemoglobin levels in IBD-associated anemia. The pooled OR was 1.45 (95% CI: 1.11-1.90; p = 0.006), favoring IV iron. Heterogeneity was minimal (I² = 2%, p = 0.41). Funnel plot analysis showed symmetrical distribution, suggesting a low likelihood of publication bias. In conclusion, IV iron supplementation provides a statistically and clinically significant advantage over oral iron for treating anemia in patients with IBD, with consistent results across diverse populations and minimal heterogeneity. These findings support guideline recommendations favoring IV iron, particularly in patients with active disease, intolerance to oral formulations, or the need for rapid anemia correction.
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.