The Impact of Oral Micronutrient Interventions on Hemoglobin Concentration in Anemic Women of Childbearing Age: A Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To complete a systematic review and meta-analysis of nutrition interventions conducted with anemic, non-pregnant women of childbearing age to determine their impact on hemoglobin concentration (Hb). Seventeen online databases were searched from November 14-December 14, 2020. Two reviewers independently screened documents via Covidence. Inclusion criteria were English-language studies; longitudinal intervention studies, including non-randomized controlled trials, randomized controlled trials, and intervention trials without control groups; women anemic at baseline; and micronutrients administered orally for > 4 weeks. Data were extracted from 45 studies that met inclusion criteria. Bayesian arm-based meta-analyses estimated the mean change in hemoglobin (g/L) for several stratifying variables. For all delivery methods, there was a mean increase in Hb: 17.48 g/L (95% Credible Interval (CI): 13.72, 21.03) for oral supplements, 18.34 g/L (95% CI: 12.32, 25.49) for `other’ interventions (i.e., powdered leaf extract, papaya, dates, iron-cooking ingot), and 6.99 g/L (95% CI: 2.80, 11.48) for fortified food. Including iron in the nutrients administered to anemic women reliably increased their Hb. Iron alone (16.51 g/L, 95% CI: 12.53, 20.73), iron and folic acid (17.69 g/L, 95% CI: 13.25, 22.94), and multiple micronutrients including iron (16.57 g/L, 95% CI: 12.11, 21.54), all had a much larger effect on Hb change than vitamins alone (7.47 g/L, 95% CI: −0.73, 16.01). Intervention duration did not have a large effect on mean Hb change as a 4–16-wk duration increased Hb by 17.49 g/L (95% CI: 13.07, 21.64), a 17–28-wk duration increased Hb by 13.23 g/L (95% CI: 5.53, 20.18) and a > 52-wk duration increased Hb by 17.9 g/L (95% CI: 9.78, 24.91). The nutrient-delivery method and inclusion of iron modified the Hb changes observed in anemic women, while intervention duration did not. Specifically, supplements, 'other’ interventions, and iron-cooking ingots were more effective in raising Hb than fortified food; any intervention which included iron increased mean Hb compared to those with only vitamins; and the effect of interventions on mean Hb did not differ by study duration. Global Affairs Canada.
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 | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".