↓ Skip to main content

Iron therapy for pre-operative anaemia

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 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
Iron therapy for pre-operative anaemia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011588.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oliver Ng, Barrie D Keeler, Amitabh Mishra, Alastair Simpson, Keith Neal, Matthew J Brookes, Austin G Acheson

Abstract

Pre-operative anaemia is common and occurs in up to 76% of patients. It is associated with increased peri-operative allogeneic blood transfusions, longer hospital lengths of stay and increased morbidity and mortality. Iron deficiency is one of the most common causes of this anaemia. Oral iron therapy has traditionally been used to treat anaemia but newer, safer parenteral iron preparations have been shown to be more effective in other conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease, chronic heart failure and post-partum haemorrhage. A limited number of studies look at iron therapy for the treatment of pre-operative anaemia. The aim of this Cochrane review is to summarise the evidence for use of iron supplementation, both enteral and parenteral, for the management of pre-operative anaemia. The objective of this review is to evaluate the effects of pre-operative iron therapy (enteral or parenteral) in reducing the need for allogeneic blood transfusions in anaemic patients undergoing surgery. We ran the search on 25 March 2015. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), EMBASE Classic and EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO), PubMed, clinical trials registries, conference abstracts, and we screened reference lists. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared pre-operative iron monotherapy to placebo, no treatment, standard of care or another form of iron therapy for anaemic adults undergoing surgery. Anaemia was defined by haemoglobin values less than 13 g/dL for males and 12 g/dL for non-pregnant females. Data were collected by two authors on the proportion of patients who receive a blood transfusion, amount of blood transfused per patient (units) and haemoglobin measured as continuous variables at pre-determined time-points: pre-treatment, pre-operatively but post-treatment, and post-operatively. Statistical analysis was performed using the Cochrane statistical software, Review Manager 2014. Outcome data were summarised in tables and a forest plot. Three prospective randomised controlled studies evaluated pre-operative iron therapy to correct anaemia (two in colorectal and one in gynaecological surgery) and included 114 patients in total. One compared oral iron versus standard care (Lidder 2007); one intravenous iron versus control (Edwards 2009); and one study compared oral versus intravenous iron (Kim 2009). Both colorectal trials reported the primary outcome (proportion of patients who received allogeneic blood transfusions) and meta-analysis showed a reduction in blood transfusions with the administration of iron therapy, but the reduction was not statistically significant (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 1.18). All studies reported haemoglobin change but data for the anaemic patients were only available for two studies (Edwards 2009 and Kim 2009). Edwards 2009 showed no difference in haemoglobin at the end of treatment pre-operatively. The intravenous versus oral iron study showed an increase in haemoglobin with intravenous iron at the end of treatment pre-operatively (MD 1.90 g/dL, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.64; participants = 56), but the results are at high risk of bias because participants with less than 80% compliance with therapy were excluded from the analysis and compliance was lower in the oral iron group due to the side-effects of treatment (Kim 2009).None of the studies reported quality of life, short- or long-term mortality or post-operative morbidity. The use of iron therapy for pre-operative anaemia does not show a statistically significant reduction in the proportion of patients who received an allogeneic blood transfusion compared to no iron therapy. However, the 38 patients in our analysis falls far short of the 819 patients our information size calculation recommended to detect a 30% reduction in blood transfusions. Intravenous iron may be more effective than oral iron at increasing haemoglobin. However, all these conclusions are drawn from only three small randomised controlled studies. Further well designed, adequately powered randomised controlled studies are required to determine the true effectiveness of iron therapy for pre-operative anaemia.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 109 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 18%
Researcher 16 14%
Other 14 12%
Student > Postgraduate 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Other 30 26%
Unknown 14 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 16 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 27 January 2019.
All research outputs
#2,929,296
of 15,362,096 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,728
of 11,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,699
of 368,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#132
of 203 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,362,096 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,163 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.0. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 368,230 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 203 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.