ReviewVox sanguinis2026
Parenteral iron-Does it increase infection risk?
Review in Vox sanguinis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Blood Transfusion in End-of-Life Cancer Care: Clinical Evidence, Patient Blood Management and Goal-Concordant Practice.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Parenteral iron-Does it increase infection risk?Vox sanguinis · 2026Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesIron deficiency (ID) and iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) are prevalent conditions impacting various patient populations, both surgical and non-surgical conditions. The advent of patient blood management (PBM) has promoted intravenous (IV) iron therapy as an alternative to oral iron and blood transfusions. However, concerns remain regarding IV iron's potential association with infection risk. This narrative review critically examines the relationship between parenteral iron therapy and infection risk across various clinical settings. It evaluates various IV iron formulations, their benefits, safety profiles and potential adverse effects, particularly infection-related complications. MATERIALS AND
methodsA structured literature search was conducted across PubMed, EMBASE, Medline and CINAHL (2014-2024) using pre-defined keywords. Observational studies and clinical trials relevant to IV iron formulations and infection risk were analysed.
resultsIV iron therapy effectively improves haemoglobin levels and reduces transfusion dependence. Studies in cardiovascular, renal, antenatal and surgical populations suggest that it is difficult to conclude that IV iron therapy significantly increases the risk of infection. Older formulations, high-dose IV iron therapy and various underlying conditions may elevate infection susceptibility due to increased levels of non-transferrin-bound iron. Emerging formulations, such as ferric carboxymaltose and ferric derisomaltose, appear to have a more favourable safety profile.
conclusionWhile IV iron remains a cornerstone in ID management, patient-specific risk factors must be considered. Further research is needed to clarify infection risk variations among different IV iron formulations and patient populations. Optimizing IV iron therapy through individualized approaches may enhance its clinical benefits while minimizing potential adverse effects.
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.