MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 4371488: Impact of Iron Supplementation on Functional Capacity in Adults with Pulmonary Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· article· en· W4415799415 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laura Aguilar, Noam Makmal, Mohammed Essa

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIron deficiencyJadad scaleObservational studyRandomized controlled trialIron supplementationMeta-analysisComorbidity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Iron deficiency is a common comorbidity in patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH), affecting approximately 43–60% of this population. Iron plays a crucial role in oxygen transport and cellular energy metabolism, and its deficiency has been associated with impaired exercise tolerance and worse clinical outcomes. While intravenous iron supplementation, has shown promise in improving functional parameters in heart failure, its role in PH remains less well defined. A systematic synthesis of the evidence is warranted to better understand the potential therapeutic value of iron supplementation in this high-risk population. Hypothesis: Our hypothesis proposes that iron supplementation may significantly improve functional outcomes in PH patients with documented iron deficiency. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of iron supplementation on the functional capacity in adults with PH. We used PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE for our systematic search of relevant studies published between 2014-2024. The studies reported a change in functional capacity with a 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance. To assess study quality, we used the Newcastle- Ottawa Scale for observational studies and Jadad score for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Using random-effects models, we calculated the mean differences with a 95% confidence interval. Results: From the collected studies, nine studies met the inclusion criteria (Figure 1). The pooled effect showed a significant improvement in 6MWT distance following iron supplementation (28.64 meters; 95% CI: 16.64 to 40.64; p < 0.01) with a substantial heterogeneity (78.5%) (Figure 2) . Of the studies considered, high-quality RCTs displayed smaller, non-significant changes (10.65 meters; 95% CI: -10.81 to 32.11) and non-randomized studies showed larger effects on functional capacity (31.68 meters; 95% CI: 21.90 to 41.45) (Figure 3). Improvements were more evident in patients with anemia at baseline. Conclusions: Iron supplementation may improve functional capacity in patients with pulmonary hypertension, particularly those with anemia. However, heterogeneity, potential bias, and differences between randomized and non-randomized studies limit the strength of current evidence. Well-designed, adequately powered trials are needed to clarify the clinical benefits and underlying mechanisms. Until then, iron therapy should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.036
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors→French-language works237,207→