ArticleBiomedical reports2026
Efficacy of oral vs. intravenous iron for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia in different conditions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Biomedical reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Advances in the understanding and management of hospital-acquired anemia.Current opinion in anaesthesiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of oral vs. intravenous (IV) iron therapy in managing iron deficiency anemia (IDA) across various clinical conditions. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov, yielding 31 eligible studies. IV iron demonstrated statistically significant superiority over oral iron in increasing hemoglobin levels among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), cancer-related anemia and general IDA. Specifically, pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) indicated significant improvements with IV iron for cancer-related anemia (SMD: -0.662, P=0.011), CKD (SMD: -0.492, P=0.035), IBD (SMD: -0.560, P<0.001) and IDA (SMD: -0.397, P<0.001). However, no significant differences were observed for postoperative anemia or restless legs syndrome. IV iron consistently provided faster hemoglobin correction and fewer gastrointestinal side effects compared with oral iron; however, higher costs and logistical requirements may limit its widespread use. Meta-regression analysis revealed that neither treatment duration nor dosage significantly influenced treatment outcomes, highlighting the role of patient-specific factors in determining the efficacy of iron therapy. Despite substantial heterogeneity, sensitivity and publication bias analyses confirmed the robustness of the findings. Overall, IV iron therapy is the preferred choice in conditions with impaired iron absorption or urgent clinical needs, whereas oral iron remains suitable for mild to moderate cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.