Iron deficiency and fatigue in inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unclear what impact iron deficiency has on fatigue in people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). This systematic review examined the evidence of whether iron deficiency, with or without anaemia, was associated with fatigue in IBD. Fatigue is a common symptom in patients with IBD that can be difficult to manage and treat. A greater understanding of the role and contribution of iron deficiency to fatigue may help improve the management of this condition. METHODS: The databases searched were MEDLINE, OVID, CINAHL and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria were studies measuring iron status for iron deficiency (ID) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for fatigue in patients with IBD of any level of disease activity. Assessment of bias was conducted using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Studies were grouped for syntheses according to whether exposure was iron deficiency without anaemia (IDWA) or ID regardless of haemoglobin level. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty-five individual database results were identified and screened; 32 complete records were reviewed, from which seven studies with 1425 individuals were deemed eligible for inclusion in the results synthesis. Considerable variation in the methods and statistical analysis used to investigate the relationship between ID and fatigue prevented any quantitative synthesis. Studies varied by population disease activity levels, approaches used to define ID and PROMs used to measure fatigue. Three studies directly compared fatigue scores in IDWA to those not iron deficient, two of which showed patients with IDWA had significantly lower fatigue scores. Four studies used ID irrespective of anaemia as the exposure and reported mixed results on fatigue, with only one study reporting a higher prevalence of fatigue in the ID group. CONCLUSIONS: There was marked heterogeneity between studies in this review. Two studies found evidence of a slight increase in fatigue levels in patients with IDWA. Though this does not explain all fatigue in patients with IBD, iron replacement should be considered to improve fatigue in iron-deficient patients.
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 | 0.007 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".