Prevalence of anemia in India: a systematic review, meta-analysis and geospatial analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Anemia is a major health concern in India, ranking second in maternal mortality and exhibits a higher prevalence compared to many other developing nations. This study aims to analyze prevalence of anemia across age groups using systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods The present systematic review and meta-analysis includes cross-sectional studies from 1995 to 2023, reporting prevalence of anemia in India. Two authors independently screened and extracted data from relevant articles sourced from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and model selection was based on observed heterogeneity (I 2 ). Geospatial analysis and cumulative meta-analysis were performed using R 4.3.3 and STATA 16 software. Results Across 157 studies, the prevalence of anemia varied among different age groups and regions in India. Toddlers (under 3 years) had a 69% prevalence, with highest in the Eastern (87%) and lowest in the Northern (50%) regions. Pre-school children (3–5 years) had a 64% prevalence, exhibiting 85% and 37% in the Central and the North-Eastern regions, respectively. Among the school going children, the overall prevalence was 51.2%. The highest prevalence at 83.9% was seen in the North-Eastern regions, while the Central regions had the lowest prevalence at 40%. An overall prevalence of 53% was observed among individuals aged 19–59 years. The Northern region exhibited the highest prevalence (64%) and the lowest in the North-Eastern (39%) regions in this age group. Elderly individuals had a prevalence between 52 to 68%, with the highest in the Eastern (65%) and the lowest in the North-Eastern (44%) regions. Conclusions Anemia prevalence was highest among toddlers and lowest among school children, with notable regional variations. Cumulative meta-analysis uncovered both consistent and increasing trends across various age groups. This meta-analysis provides essential insights for effective strategies against persistence of anemia prevalence. Trial registration PROSPERO registration number is CRD42023431577.
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 | 0.014 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".