MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384277080 · doi:10.1186/s13643-023-02222-4

Impact of iron supplementation on patient outcomes for women with abnormal uterine bleeding: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4384277080 on OpenAlexafffund
Hasmik Nazaryan, Megan Watson, Dana Ellingham, Swarni Thakar, Andrea Wang, Menaka Pai, Yang Liu, Bram Rochwerg, Nadia Gabarin, Donald M. Arnold, Emily Sirotich, Michelle P. Zeller

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUterine Myomas and Treatments
Canadian institutionsImpactCanadian Blood ServicesMcMaster University
FundersPfizer Canada
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisPsychological interventionObservational studySystematic reviewCINAHLRandomized controlled trialPlaceboMEDLINECochrane LibraryIntensive care medicineAnemiaPhysical therapyAlternative medicineSurgeryInternal medicinePsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB), which includes heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), is a common condition placing women at increased risk for developing iron deficiency and iron deficiency anemia (IDA). Depletion of iron stores has negative implications on physical, social, and emotional health, as well as quality of life. Iron supplements are safe, effective, and readily available, while red blood cell (RBC) transfusions have inherent risks including infectious and immune reactions. Despite high prevalence of IDA among women with AUB, there are limited studies on the impact of iron therapies on patient outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis will evaluate the impact of iron supplementation on patient outcomes for women with AUB, when compared to combination therapy, no intervention, placebo, or standard of care. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies evaluating the impact of iron interventions on patient outcomes for women with AUB. Systematic literature searches will be conducted in major databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Studies assessing the impact of iron interventions on patient outcomes in women experiencing AUB, in comparison to combination therapy, no intervention, placebo, or standard of care, will be included in the review. Independent reviewers will screen for eligibility, assess risk of bias, and abstract data. Overall certainty of evidence for each outcome will be assessed using the GRADE approach. We will meta-analyze outcomes which are sufficiently homogeneous to summarize intervention effects and narratively synthesize nonhomogeneous outcomes. The main outcomes of interest are hemoglobin levels immediately prior to surgery and post-operatively, number of RBC transfusions, and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes will include length of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, adverse and side effects, quality of life, and iron indices. DISCUSSION: This review will evaluate the impact of iron interventions on patient outcomes in women with IDA secondary to AUB with focus on changes in hematological and iron indices, red blood cell utilization, quality of life, cost of treatment, and adverse events. The results will inform evidence-based clinical practice for the management of iron deficiency and IDA secondary to AUB. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019137282.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0310.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.197
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicUterine Myomas and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207