Variation in Antenatal Anaemia Guidelines Across the NHS in the UK: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the content and consistency of antenatal anaemia guidelines across NHS sites in the UK and compare them with national recommendations. Design: Descriptive cross-sectional study. Setting: NHS trusts/health boards providing maternity services across the UK. Population/Sample: Guidelines from 51 NHS sites: 16 from the PANDA trial, 36 from the OBS UK study, and 3 additional Welsh sites. Methods: Guidelines were obtained via email or public sources. Two independent reviewers used a structured tool to extract data on screening, diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring. Guideline alignment with 2019 BSH recommendations was assessed, and data were analysed descriptively in RStudio. Main Outcome Measures: Variation in recommendations for screening methods, diagnostic thresholds, oral and intravenous iron use, and post-treatment monitoring. Results: Forty-nine guidelines were included, representing ~33% of UK births. Screening and diagnostic thresholds were generally aligned with national guidance. Variation was observed in: (1) oral iron treatment (indications, dosing, duration); (2) criteria for initiating intravenous iron; and (3) timing, biomarkers, and definitions for monitoring. Ferritin thresholds, reassessment intervals, and response criteria were often missing or inconsistent with national guidance. Conclusions: This study identified consistent screening recommendations but substantial variation in treatment and monitoring, often diverging from national guidelines. These findings highlight the need to better understand local–national discrepancies and their implications for those who commission, develop, and implement clinical guidelines. Funding : This study received no specific funding; the PANDA (NIHR RP-PG-NIHR200869) and OBS UK (HSDR-NIHR152057) trials are funded by the NIHR. Keywords : antenatal, anaemia, iron deficiency, pregnancy, guidelines, NHS.
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 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".