Intravenous Iron Therapy Versus Blood Transfusion for Iron Deficiency Anemia: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
of September 2024 by using PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases to identify studies comparing intravenous iron with blood transfusion in patients with iron deficiency anemia (<12 g/dL for women and <13 g/dL for men). The outcome selected was change in hemoglobin levels. The quality of the trials was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. We included 5 studies (three randomized controlled trials, 1 observational study and 1 retrospective study) comprising a total of 154,539 patients. Patient populations were heterogenous, encompassing surgical patients, patients undergoing hip fracture and pregnant women. Due to heterogeneity among the included studies, hemoglobin levels were reported at varying follow-up intervals. At 3 weeks follow-up or later after initial treatment, 3 studies reported significantly higher hemoglobin levels (ranging from 0.7 g/dL to 1.4 g/dL higher) in the intravenous iron group compared to the blood transfusion group. The remaining 2 studies found similar hemoglobin levels. Less than 3 weeks after initial treatment, 2 studies reported significantly higher hemoglobin levels in the blood transfusion group compared to the intravenous iron group. Our findings indicate that blood transfusion is more effective in achieving a rapid increase in hemoglobin levels shortly after therapy initiation, although this effect diminishes relatively swiftly. In contrast, intravenous iron seems to exert a more gradual increase in, but also longer lasting effect on, hemoglobin levels. However, our findings are limited by the small number of trials as well as questionable methodological quality of the included studies, resulting in a high risk of bias. Further investigation is warranted.
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".