Evaluation of the Use of Intravenous Iron Supplements in an Obstetrics and Gynecology Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The use of intravenous (IV) iron sucrose was approved for the obstetric and gynecologic (OBGYN) population at our mother–child teaching hospital in 2006 for intolerance or nonresponse to oral iron supplements, contraindication to intramuscular (IM) iron, and rapid increase of the hemoglobin desired in iron-deficient patients. Objectives: ( a) To describe the indications and doses of IV iron sucrose used in OBGYN, ( b) to assess monitoring, and ( c) to describe the adverse effect profile. Methods: A retrospective study of patients admitted to the OBGYN wards with at least one prescription of IV iron from January 1, 2006, to March 31, 2010, was conducted. A standardized data collection sheet was used to record data. Results: A total of 164 prescriptions of IV iron were reviewed in 128 women. The indications for IV iron were anemia before delivery (n = 76), intolerance or no response to oral iron (n = 61), or intolerance or contraindication to IM iron (n = 27). Fourteen doses (9%) were appropriate, and the others were too low. Prior to prescription, ferritin or serum iron levels were assessed in 31% of women and hemoglobin electrophoresis in nearly all of Black or Asian women. One-week follow-up hemoglobin levels were measured after 66 prescriptions (40.2%). Adverse effects, mostly pain at the injection site, were reported in 18 (11%) occasions. Conclusions: IV iron is prescribed in OBGYN patients to obtain a rapid hemoglobin increase or when oral iron is not tolerated or inefficacious. The dose prescribed is generally too low, baseline essential testing often omitted, and appropriate follow-up monitoring incomplete. IV iron is well tolerated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".