↓ Skip to main content

Daily oral iron supplementation during pregnancy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
139 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
634 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 oral iron supplementation during pregnancy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004736.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juan Pablo Peña-Rosas, Luz Maria De-Regil, Maria N Garcia-Casal, Therese Dowswell

Abstract

Iron and folic acid supplementation has been the preferred intervention to improve iron stores and prevent anaemia among pregnant women, and it is thought to improve other maternal and birth outcomes. To assess the effects of daily oral iron supplements for pregnant women, either alone or in conjunction with folic acid, or with other vitamins and minerals as a public health intervention in antenatal care. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (10 January 2015). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (26 February 2015) and contacted relevant organisations for the identification of ongoing and unpublished studies (26 February 2015) . Randomised or quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effects of oral preventive supplementation with daily iron, iron + folic acid or iron + other vitamins and minerals during pregnancy. We assessed the methodological quality of trials using standard Cochrane criteria. Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data and conducted checks for accuracy. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence for primary outcomes.We anticipated high heterogeneity among trials and we pooled trial results using a random-effects model and were cautious in our interpretation of the pooled results: the random-effects model gives the average treatment effect. We included 61 trials. Forty-four trials, involving 43,274 women, contributed data and compared the effects of daily oral supplements containing iron versus no iron or placebo.Preventive iron supplementation reduced maternal anaemia at term by 70% (risk ratio (RR) 0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.46, 14 trials, 2199 women, low quality evidence), iron-deficiency anaemia at term (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.69, six trials, 1088 women), and iron deficiency at term by 57% (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.66, seven trials, 1256 women, low quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for severe anaemia in the second or third trimester, or maternal infection during pregnancy (RR 0.22; 95% CI 0.01 to 3.20, nine trials, 2125 women, very low quality evidence; and, RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.33 to 4.46; one trial, 727 women, low quality evidence, respectively), or maternal mortality (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.01 to 8.19, two trials, 12,560 women, very low quality evidence), or reporting of side effects (RR 1.29; 95% CI 0.83 to 2.02, 11 trials, 2423 women, very low quality evidence). Women receiving iron were on average more likely to have higher haemoglobin (Hb) concentrations at term and in the postpartum period, but were at increased risk of Hb concentrations greater than 130 g/L during pregnancy, and at term.Compared with controls, women taking iron supplements less frequently had low birthweight newborns (8.4% versus 10.3%, average RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.03, 11 trials, 17,613 women, low quality evidence), and preterm babies (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.03, 13 trials, 19,286 women, moderate quality evidence). They appeared to also deliver slightly heavier babies (mean difference (MD) 23.75; 95% CI -3.02 to 50.51, 15 trials, 18,590 women, moderate quality evidence). None of these results were statistically significant. There were no clear differences between groups for neonatal death (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.18, four trials, 16,603 infants, low quality evidence), or congenital anomalies (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.33, four trials, 14,636 infants, low quality evidence).Twenty-three studies were conducted in countries that in 2011 had some malaria risk in parts of the country. In some of these countries/territories, malaria is present only in certain areas or up to a particular altitude. Only two of these studies reported malaria outcomes. There is no evidence that iron supplementation increases placental malaria. For some outcomes heterogeneity was higher than 50%. Supplementation reduces the risk of maternal anaemia and iron deficiency in pregnancy but the positive effect on other maternal and infant outcomes is less clear. Implementation of iron supplementation recommendations may produce heterogeneous results depending on the populations' background risk for low birthweight and anaemia, as well as the level of adherence to the intervention.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 634 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Germany 3 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 612 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 140 22%
Student > Bachelor 116 18%
Researcher 89 14%
Unspecified 70 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 57 9%
Other 162 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 276 44%
Unspecified 107 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 97 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 6%
Social Sciences 29 5%
Other 89 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 72. 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 26 January 2019.
All research outputs
#228,123
of 13,278,410 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#586
of 10,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,915
of 234,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#20
of 258 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,278,410 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,546 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
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 234,302 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 258 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.