Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Versus Oral Iron in Treating Maternal Anaemia During Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maternal anaemia is a major global health issue linked to adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes; while oral iron is widely used, its gastrointestinal side effects limit adherence, and intravenous (IV) formulations may offer faster correction with better tolerability. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis at a tertiary academic centre (January-June 2024) of studies published from January 2015 to January 2025, searching PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing IV with oral iron in anaemic pregnant women. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (cohorts) and the Cochrane tool (RCTs). Random-effects models yielded pooled mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Six studies (n = 3,842) were included. IV iron increased maternal haemoglobin versus oral iron (MD +1.21 g/dL; 95% CI 0.83-1.59; p < 0.001) and improved anaemia correction (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.69-3.61; p < 0.001). Neonatal outcomes did not differ significantly, though mean birthweight tended to be higher with IV iron, and adverse events - particularly gastrointestinal symptoms - were fewer. Overall, IV iron, especially ferric carboxymaltose and iron sucrose, appears more effective and well-tolerated than oral iron; larger trials are needed to clarify long-term maternal and neonatal benefits.
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 | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".