Iron replacement therapy in inflammatory bowel disease patients with iron deficiency anemia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is a common problem in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) and has a significant negative impact on quality of life. The aim was to compare the clinical efficacy of intravenous (IV) versus oral (PO) iron replacement in adult IBD with iron deficiency anemia (IDA). METHODS: A systematic search for randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of IV versus PO iron therapy in the treatment of IDA in adult IBD patients. The primary outcome was the mean change in the hemoglobin at the end of study and secondary outcomes include mean change in ferritin, clinical disease activity index, quality of life score and the adverse reaction rate. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 757 articles while only three industry-funded articles met the inclusion criteria for systematic review and meta-analysis. The total sample size was 333 patients with 203 patients receiving IV therapy. IV route was associated with a 6.8 g/L higher mean hemoglobin increment and 110 μg/L higher mean ferritin increment. The IBD activity index and Quality of Life scores were comparable between the two treatment groups. More adverse events were reported in the oral treatment group with the odds for discontinuation being 6.2 (CI 2.2, 17.1). CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous iron treatment is better tolerated and more effective than oral iron treatment in improving ferritin. The higher hemoglobin gain with the IV route was small and of uncertain clinical significance. The combined sample size of the included studies was small and further clinical trials are required.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".