Intravenous iron therapy in a rural hospital: A retrospective chart review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Intravenous iron infusion therapy is commonly delivered in rural hospitals, but there are no common guidelines for dosing or choice of agent. The objective of the study was to understand present practice and alternate therapies and develop practical recommendations for small hospital use. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of all non-dialysis patients aged 15 years or older who received iron replacement therapy at Sioux Lookout Meno Ya Win Health Centre from May 2013 to May 2019 and a literature review of available iron preparations. RESULTS: Of the 147 patients who received intravenous iron replacement, 75 were administered a single dose of 200 mg or 500 mg iron sucrose. Commonly used in pregnant patients, an increase in haemoglobin by an average of 9.2 g/L followed a 200 mg dose and 12.5 g/L after 500 mg. The 3-h infusion time for the 500 mg dose consumed considerably more nursing resources. Non-pregnant patients can be transfused more effectively with iron maltoside which can efficiently deliver larger doses of iron. CONCLUSION: We recommend iron maltoside for efficient intravenous iron replacement in non-pregnant patients and single or multiple doses of 200 mg iron sucrose during pregnancy.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".