↓ Skip to main content

Daily home fortification with iron as ferrous fumarate versus NaFeEDTA: a randomised, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial in Kenyan children

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Daily home fortification with iron as ferrous fumarate versus NaFeEDTA: a randomised, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial in Kenyan children
Published in
BMC Medicine, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0839-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily M. Teshome, Pauline E. A. Andang’o, Victor Osoti, Sofie R. Terwel, Walter Otieno, Ayşe Y. Demir, Andrew M. Prentice, Hans Verhoef

Abstract

We aimed to show the non-inferiority of home fortification with a daily dose of 3 mg iron in the form of iron as ferric sodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate (NaFeEDTA) compared with 12.5 mg iron as encapsulated ferrous fumarate in Kenyan children aged 12-36 months. In addition, we updated a recent meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of home fortification with iron-containing powders, with a view to examining diversity in trial results. We gave chemoprevention by dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine, albendazole and praziquantel to 338 afebrile children with haemoglobin concentration ≥70 g/L. We randomly allocated them to daily home fortification for 30 days with either placebo, 3 mg iron as NaFeEDTA or 12.5 mg iron as encapsulated ferrous fumarate. We assessed haemoglobin concentration (primary outcome), plasma iron markers, plasma inflammation markers and Plasmodium infection in samples collected at baseline and after 30 days of intervention. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials in pre-school children to assess the effect of home fortification with iron-containing powders on anaemia and haemoglobin concentration at end of intervention. A total of 315 children completed the 30-day intervention period. At baseline, 66.9% of children had inflammation (plasma C-reactive protein concentration >5 mg/L or plasma α 1-acid glycoprotein concentration >1.0 g/L); in those without inflammation, 42.5% were iron deficient. There was no evidence, either in per protocol analysis or intention-to-treat analysis, that home fortification with either of the iron interventions improved haemoglobin concentration, plasma ferritin concentration, plasma transferrin receptor concentration or erythrocyte zinc protoporphyrin-haem ratio. We also found no evidence of effect modification by iron status, anaemia status and inflammation status at baseline. In the meta-analysis, the effect on haemoglobin concentration was highly heterogeneous between trials (I (2): 84.1%; p value for test of heterogeneity: <0.0001). In this population, home fortification with either 3 mg iron as NaFeEDTA or 12.5 mg iron as encapsulated ferrous fumarate was insufficiently efficacious to assess non-inferiority of 3 mg iron as NaFeEDTA compared to 12.5 mg iron as encapsulated ferrous fumarate. Our finding of heterogeneity between trial results should stimulate subgroup analysis or meta-regression to identify population-specific factors that determine efficacy. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02073149 ) on 25 February 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 133 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Student > Master 15 11%
Researcher 13 10%
Other 7 5%
Other 26 20%
Unknown 38 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 9%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Other 23 17%
Unknown 43 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,096,207
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,329
of 3,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,488
of 310,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#41
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,448 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,521 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.