ArticleTropical medicine and health2026
Evaluating policy guidelines for the prevention and management of anaemia in pregnancy in Africa: a systematic scoping review of practices and recommendations.
Article in Tropical medicine and health, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnaemia in pregnancy (AiP) remains a major public health concern in Africa, contributing substantially to maternal and neonatal morbidity. However, variability in the quality and content of clinical and policy guidelines may hinder effective prevention and management.
methodsThis scoping review followed the Arksey and O'Malley framework. We searched PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, and grey literature sources (WHO-AFRO, WHO-IRIS, and UNICEF) from 7 April 2025. Only guidelines published in English were included. Two reviewers independently screened records using Rayyan software based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The methodological quality of included guidelines was appraised by three appraisers using the AGREE II instrument.
resultsTwenty-one guidelines were included (18 from databases and 3 from web searches). Overall, the guidelines clearly described their objectives and recommendations; however, important differences were observed in their methodological quality and usability. Most guidelines performed well in describing their purpose and presenting recommendations, but many lacked detailed information on evidence review methods, involvement of relevant stakeholders, practical implementation strategies, and processes to ensure independence. Based on AGREE II assessment, six guidelines (28.6%) were recommended as high quality, six (28.6%) were recommended with modifications, and nine (42.8%) were not recommended due to major quality limitations. Preventive strategies were widely endorsed, although variations existed in diagnostic thresholds, iron-folic acid supplementation regimens, and integration with malaria interventions. A key limitation was the restriction to English-language documents, which may have excluded relevant context-specific guidelines.
conclusionsAiP guidelines across Africa show notable variability in screening, diagnostic criteria, treatment regimens, and implementation, alongside gaps in methodological rigour and applicability. These inconsistencies hinder comparability and effective practice. Strengthening future guidelines will require harmonized yet context-sensitive approaches, clearer evidence-based standards, and better integration of implementation tools addressing feasibility, cost, and sociocultural factors. Improving both quality and contextual relevance is essential for advancing maternal health outcomes and progress towards SDG 3.
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.