Patient‐centred outcomes for oral vs IV iron: Blood transfusion
Patient‐centred outcomes for oral showed no clear difference in number requiring transfusion compared with IV iron (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Patient‐centred outcomes for oral vs IV iron Number requiring transfusion · adults and children with CKD Patient‐centred outcomes for oral showed no clear difference in number requiring transfusion compared with IV iron (low certainty). Parenteral versus oral iron therapy for adults and children with chronic kidney disease (2019) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.86 [0.55, 1.34] | 5 studies · 774 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parenteral versus oral iron therapy for adults and children with chronic kidney disease 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.