MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411339408 · doi:10.1101/2025.06.13.25329470

Implementation strategies and outcomes of intravenous iron use for treatment of anaemia during and after pregnancy in LMICs: a scoping review

2025· review· en· W4411339408 on OpenAlexaff
Mobolanle Balogun, Elizabeth Adjoa Kumah, Victoria Adaramoye, Ejemai Eboreime, Charles Ameh, Bosede Bukola Afolabi

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIron Metabolism and Disorders
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsIntravenous ironPregnancyMedicineIntensive care medicineObstetricsIron deficiencyAnemiaInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background There is sufficient evidence of the efficacy of Intravenous (IV) over oral iron in treating anaemia in pregnancy and the postpartum. However, poor implementation can lead to little or no benefit. The objectives of this scoping review are to map and synthesise evidence related to implementation strategies and implementation outcomes of IV iron use for treating anaemia in pregnancy and the postpartum in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute’s methodology for conducting scoping reviews. Electronic databases were searched to identify relevant literature sources published up until June 2025. Two independent reviewers conducted screening using the Covidence software. Descriptive statistics was used to synthesise data and findings were reported narratively. Synthesis of implementation strategies was guided by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change compilation. Results Our search yielded 4,589 publications, 20 were included in the review. Ten studies used implementation strategies, mostly “assessment for readiness and identification of barriers and facilitators” (40%; 4/10) and “promotion of adaptability” (30%; 3/10). Fourteen studies mentioned the assessment of implementation outcomes; most assessed were acceptability (42.9%; 6/14) and fidelity (35.7%; 5/14). Only five studies used any theory, model, framework (TMF) or validated measures in the implementation of strategies or assessment of outcomes. Conclusion There is limited implementation research on the use of IV iron for the treatment of anaemia in pregnancy and the postpartum in LMICs. Critically, the use of TMFs and validated measures are deficient in current sources of evidence. More rigorous assessments of the implementation of IV iron for obstetric anaemia in LMICs are required to guide practice, policy and uptake.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.155
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.155
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0150.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicIron Metabolism and DisordersFrench-language works237,207