ReviewCureus2026
Intravenous and Oral Iron Strategies for Iron-Deficiency Anemia in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials From a Hematology Perspective.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Iron-deficiency anemia is the most common hematologic disorder in pregnancy. Slow iron repletion, poor gastrointestinal tolerance, and late presentation during gestation often limit the effectiveness of oral ferrous salts, which remain the traditional first-line treatment. Intravenous iron offers faster iron delivery, but its role in routine antenatal care remains uncertain, particularly regarding its long-term safety and cost-effectiveness compared to traditional oral iron treatments. This qualitative systematic review included 10 randomized controlled trials published within the last decade that enrolled pregnant women with iron-deficiency anemia or persistent iron deficiency (defined, where applicable, as ferritin <30 μg/L after approximately four weeks of oral iron therapy) and compared intravenous iron with oral iron or one intravenous formulation with another. Across the included trials, intravenous iron generally produced more rapid ferritin replenishment and, in many studies, a faster rise in hemoglobin than oral therapy. Oral ferrous preparations were associated with more gastrointestinal adverse effects; for example, in one study, gastrointestinal treatment-related events were reported in more women receiving oral ferrous sulfate versus those receiving ferric carboxymaltose. In another trial, nausea/vomiting occurred in greater number of oral-iron recipients versus intravenous ones, while constipation and epigastric discomfort were reported only in the oral group. By contrast, serious intravenous treatment-related events were uncommon in the larger trials. Smaller and medium-sized trials generally favored parenteral iron for hematologic recovery, but the largest pragmatic studies from India, Malawi, and Nigeria showed that biochemical superiority did not consistently translate into lower rates of late-pregnancy anemia or improved major maternal and neonatal outcomes. One head-to-head intravenous trial also suggested practical and hematologic advantages of ferric carboxymaltose over iron sucrose. From a hematology perspective, intravenous iron appears most useful when rapid restoration of iron stores is needed, when adherence to oral therapy is doubtful, or when little time remains before delivery. Future trials should standardize ferritin-based diagnostic criteria, clearly distinguish hematologic from obstetric endpoints, and better define which patients are most likely to derive clinically meaningful benefit from parenteral iron.
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.