Efficacy of oral iron therapy in improving the developmental outcome of pre-school children with non-anaemic iron deficiency: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the efficacy and safety of oral Fe therapy in pre-school children (1–5 years) with non-anaemic Fe deficiency, determined by children’s developmental and haematological status and the incidence of reported side-effects. DESIGN: A random-effects model was used to show mean differences with 95% confidence intervals of developmental and haematological scores between Fe-treated and non-treated groups. SETTING: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library and bibliographies of identified articles were searched up to September 2011. Randomized and observational studies were assessed by two reviewers independently. Quality of the trials was assessed on the basis of concealment of allocation, method of randomization, masking of outcome assessment and completeness of follow-up. SUBJECTS: From the titles of 743 articles, full text review was completed on forty-six and two randomized trials of acceptable quality met the inclusion criteria. The two trials included a total of sixty-nine children. RESULTS: One study showed a statistically significant difference in the post-treatment Mental Developmental Index score among children who received oral Fe therapy v. no therapy (mean difference56?3, 95% CI 1?5, 11?0, P value not provided). Both studies showed significant improvement in serum ferritin level (mg/l: mean difference551? 1, 95% CI 33?6, 68?6, P,0?01 and mean difference517?1, 95% CI 7?5, 26?6, P value not provided, respectively) in children who received Fe therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is insufficient to recommend oral Fe therapy to children with non-anaemic Fe deficiency. There is urgent need of conducting adequately powered, randomized trials examining the efficacy of oral Fe therapy in pre-school children with non-anaemic Fe deficiency.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".