ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026
Vitamin B12 replacement strategies: a Brazilian delphi consensus.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Vitamin B12 deficiency is common in older adults, atrophic gastritis, and after bariatric surgery, and can cause irreversible neurological injury. Oral, sublingual, and intramuscular routes all correct serum concentrations, yet whether any route is superior for clinically meaningful outcomes is unclear, and international guidelines diverge. This consensus was convened to define where evidence is adequate, where it is lacking, and the priority research questions. Methods: This was a modified Delphi consensus study. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied through a two-stage process of 2 electronic rounds and an in-person meeting in São Paulo, Brazil. Panellists were recruited between 1 July 2025 and 15 July 2025. Thirty statements were voted on, presented as 31 graded items, using a binary (agree or disagree) format with a priori percentage-agreement grades (A+, 100%; A, 90%-99.9%; B, 80%-89.9%; C, 70%-79.9%; and D, 66%-69.9%). Draft statements, informed by a systematic review, were rated anonymously by a Brazilian multidisciplinary panel of 20 experts across haematology, gastroenterology, endocrinology, bariatric surgery, and geriatric medicine/neurology. Of 20 experts invited, all 20 agreed to participate and completed the electronic rounds (100%); 16 (80%) attended the in-person meeting. Patient representatives (n = 2) participated as non-voting observers. Grade A (at least 90% agreement) was the stopping rule. This consensus was not registered. Findings: In total, 30 statements across 6 modules were agreed, comprising 31 separately graded items as statement 1 was presented in two parts (1a and 1b); 22 of 31 items (71%) reached grade A+ (100% agreement) and 9 of 31 (29%) reached grade A (90%-99.9%). All routes were judged capable of normalising serum vitamin B12, but none showed proven superiority for symptom resolution, neurological recovery, functional status, or quality of life. Evidence gaps were greatest after bariatric surgery, in older adults with cognitive impairment or frailty, and in pernicious anaemia. Dosing, monitoring, and response definitions varied substantially. Interpretation: Vitamin B12 replacement across all routes remains guided primarily by biochemical rather than clinical evidence. Treatment should be individualised by aetiology, patient preference, feasibility, and access, with functional biomarkers and clinical assessment complementing serum levels. Adequately powered, long-term comparative trials using standardised, patient-centred outcomes are the priority. Funding: This work was funded by Myralis Indústria Farmacêutica Ltda, São Paulo, Brazil.
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.