Table 2 GRADE summary of findings.

From: Clinical outcome post treatment of anemia in pregnancy with intravenous versus oral iron therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Intravenous iron compared to Oral Iron for Rise in Hb

Participants (studies) Follow-up

Risk of bias

Inconsistency

Indirectness

Imprecision

Publication bias

Overall certainty of evidence

8061 (34 RCTs)

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

High

Intravenous iron compared to Oral Iron for preventing adverse maternal outcome

Certainty assessment

Summary of findings

Participants (studies) Follow-up

Risk of bias

Inconsistency

Indirectness

Imprecision

Publication bias

Overall certainty of evidence

Study event rates (%)

Relative effect (95% CI)

Anticipated absolute effects

With Oral Iron

With Intravenous iron

Risk with Oral Iron

Risk difference with Intravenous iron

22,152 (19 RCTs)

Not serious

Serious a

Not seriousb

Not serious

None

Moderate

461/11,323 (4.1%)

337/10,829 (3.1%)

OR 0.79 (0.66 to 0.95)

41 per 1000

8 fewer per 1000 (from 13 to 2 fewer)

Intravenous iron compared to Oral Iron for preventing adverse neonatal Outcome

4961 (9 RCTs)

Not serious

Serious a

Not serious

Serious c

None

Low

583/2496 (23.4%)

566/2465 (23.0%)

OR 0.99 (0.86 to 1.14)

234 per 1000

2 fewer per 1000 (from 26 fewer to 24 more)

Intravenous iron compared to Oral Iron for preventing adverse events (reactions)

13,909 (29 RCTs)

Not serious

Serious a

Not serious

Not serious

Publication bias strongly suspected c

Low

1071/6931 (15.5%)

678/6978 (9.7%)

OR 0.39 (0.26 to 0.60)

155 per 1000

88 fewer per 1000 (from 109 to 56 fewer)

  1. CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio.
  2. a. The methodology for reporting the outcomes was not similar. The study sample also varied across the studies.