MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3167588435 · doi:10.1182/blood.v130.suppl_1.3497.3497

Efficacy of Iron Therapy on Fatigue and Work Capacity in Non-Anemic Iron Deficient Adults: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

2017· review· en· W3167588435 sur OpenAlexaff
Brett L. Houston, Daryl M.G. Hurrie, Jeff Graham, Brittany Perija, Emily Rimmer, Rasheda Rabbani, Çharles N. Bernstein, Alexis F. Turgeon, Dean Fergusson, Donald S. Houston, Ahmed M Abou-Setta, Ryan Zarychanski

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2017
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueIron Metabolism and Disorders
Établissements canadiensGeorge & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare InnovationCentre hospitalier de l'Université LavalUniversity of ManitobaCancerCare Manitoba
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicinePlaceboRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectAnemiaInternal medicineIron-deficiency anemiaPhysical therapyIron deficiencyMeta-analysisFerritinAlternative medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Iron supplementation in iron deficiency anemia is standard practice, but the benefits of iron supplementation in iron deficient non-anemic (IDNA) individuals remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the effects of iron therapy on fatigue and work capacity in iron deficient non-anemic adults. METHODS: We included randomized controlled trials of adults (≥18 years) who were iron deficient but non-anemic. Interventions included oral, intramuscular or intravenous iron supplementation; all therapy doses, frequencies and durations were included. We included trials that evaluated outcomes at least 1 month from the initiation of iron therapy. Comparators included placebo or active therapy. Our primary outcome measures were self-reported fatigue and objective measures of work capacity. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of anemia, change in hemoglobin concentration and serum ferritin, and the incidence of adverse outcomes including iron toxicity, constipation, diarrhea, gastrointestinal intolerance and nausea. We searched Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, SportDiscus, and CAB Abstracts from inception to October 31, 2016. We searched the World Health Organization's ICTRP for relevant ongoing trials and performed forward searches of included trials and relevant reviews in Web of Science. We assessed internal validity of included trials using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and the external validity using the GRADE methodology. RESULTS: From 11580 citations we included 18 unique trials, and 2 companion papers enrolling 1162 patients (Table 1). Trials were published between 1989 and 2015, and all trials were published in peer-reviewed journals. Exclusively healthy females (aged 17 to 55 years old) with varying levels of fitness (sedentary to well-trained) were enrolled in all but three studies. Iron interventions consisted of iron supplementation administered orally, intramuscularly or intravenously. Of the trials evaluating oral supplements, all but one used ferrous sulfate (13 trials, 721 participants). Intravenous iron was administered in three trials (395 participants), and intramuscular iron in one trial (16 participants). In trials using oral iron, the mean daily elemental iron dose was 86.9mg (± 49.1mg; range: 16 to 200mg). In trials reporting intravenous iron, the mean daily elemental iron dose was 566mg (± 330mg; range 200 to 1000mg) and mean total elemental iron dose 767mg (± 206mg; range 500 to 1000mg). Among all studies, the mean duration of iron therapy was 46 days (± 30 days; range 1 to 112 days), and mean duration of follow-up was 57 days (± 24 days; range 28 to 112 days). Fatigue was evaluated in four trials enrolling 714 participants. Iron supplementation was associated with a reduction in subjective measures of fatigue when assessed by either the Piper Fatigue Scale (PFS), the Current and Past Psychological State scale (CAPPS), visual analog scale or Brief Fatigue Inventory questionnaire (BFI) (SMD -0.38; 95% CI -0.52 to -0.23; I2 0%). Work capacity was reported in 10 trials (291 participants); all but one of the trials employed at least one of three common aerobic tests of work capacity: time trial, time to exhaustion, or VO2 max performance from a graded exercise test. In two trials (79 participants) that used 15 km time trials, iron supplementation was not associated with improved exercise capacity (SMD -0.09; 95% CI -0.53 to 0.35; I2 0%). In four trials (69 participants) that used time-to-exhaustion tests, iron supplementation did not significantly improve exercise capacity (SMD 0.25; 95% CI -0.22 to 0.73; I2 0%). Nine trials (235 participants) reported VO2 max as a surrogate measure of work capacity. Iron supplementation did not increase VO2 max (SMD 0.11; 95% CI -0.15 to 0.37; I2 0%). CONCLUSION: In iron deficient non-anemic adults, iron supplementation is associated with reduced subjective measures of fatigue, but not with objective improvements in work capacity. Given the global prevalence of both iron deficiency and fatigue, patients and practitioners could consider a course of iron supplementation to improve symptoms of fatigue in presence or absence of documented anemia. Download : Download high-res image (262KB) Download : Download full-size image Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,016
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,017
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,086

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0160,060
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0170,015
Bibliométrie0,0060,008
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,088
Tête enseignante GPT0,360
Écart entre enseignants0,272 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetIron Metabolism and Disorders→Travaux en français237 207→