↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Treatment for women with postpartum iron deficiency anaemia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

5 news outlets
1 policy source
12 X users
2 Facebook pages
1 Wikipedia page


47 Dimensions

Readers on

372 Mendeley
Treatment for women with postpartum iron deficiency anaemia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010861.pub2
Pubmed ID

Veronika Markova, Astrid Norgaard, Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, Jens Langhoff‐Roos


Postpartum iron deficiency anaemia is caused by bleeding or inadequate dietary iron intake/uptake. This condition is defined by iron deficiency accompanied by a lower than normal blood haemoglobin concentration, although this can be affected by factors other than anaemia and must be interpreted in the light of any concurrent symptoms. Symptoms include fatigue, breathlessness, and dizziness. Treatment options include oral or intravenous iron, erythropoietin which stimulates red blood cell production, and substitution by red blood cell transfusion. To assess the efficacy and harms of the available treatment modalities for women with postpartum iron deficiency anaemia. The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (9 April 2015); the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Portal (ICTRP), and the Latin-American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database (LILACS) (8 April 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. We included published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials that compared a treatment for postpartum iron deficiency anaemia with placebo, no treatment, or another treatment for postpartum iron deficiency anaemia, including trials described in abstracts only. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. We included both open-label trials and blinded trials, regardless of who was blinded. The participants were women with a postpartum haemoglobin of 120 g per litre (g/L) or less, for which treatment was initiated within six weeks after childbirth.Non-randomised trials, quasi-randomised trials and trials using a cross-over design were excluded. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, quality, and extracted data. We contacted study authors and pharmaceutical companies for additional information. We included 22 randomised controlled trials (2858 women), most of which had high risk of bias in several domains. We performed 13 comparisons. Many comparisons are based on a small number of studies with small sample sizes. No analysis of our primary outcomes contained more than two studies.Intravenous iron was compared to oral iron in 10 studies (1553 women). Fatigue was reported in two studies and improved significantly favouring the intravenously treated group in one of the studies. Other anaemia symptoms were not reported. One woman died from cardiomyopathy (risk ratio (RR) 2.95; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 71.96; two studies; one event; 374 women; low quality evidence). One woman developed arrhythmia. Both cardiac complications occurred in the intravenously treated group. Allergic reactions occurred in three women treated with intravenous iron, not statistically significant (average RR 2.78; 95% CI 0.31 to 24.92; eight studies; 1454 women; I² = 0%; low quality evidence). Gastrointestinal events were less frequent in the intravenously treated group (average RR 0.31; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.47; eight studies; 169 events; 1307 women; I² = 0%; very low quality evidence).One study evaluated red blood cell transfusion versus non-intervention. General fatigue improved significantly more in the transfusion group at three days (MD -0.80; 95% CI -1.53 to -0.07; women 388; low quality evidence), but no difference between groups was seen at six weeks. Maternal mortality was not reported.The remaining comparisons evaluated oral iron (with or without other food substances) versus placebo (three studies), intravenous iron with oral iron versus oral iron (two studies) and erythropoietin (alone or combined with iron) versus placebo or iron (seven studies). These studies did not investigate fatigue. Maternal mortality was rarely reported. The body of evidence did not allow us to reach a clear conclusion regarding the efficacy of the interventions on postpartum iron deficiency anaemia. The quality of evidence was low.Clinical outcomes were rarely reported. Laboratory values may not be reliable indicators for efficacy, as they do not always correlate with clinical treatment effects. It remains unclear which treatment modality is most effective in alleviating symptoms of postpartum anaemia.Intravenous iron was superior regarding gastrointestinal harms, however anaphylaxis and cardiac events occurred and more data are needed to establish whether this was caused by intravenous iron.The clinical significance of some temporarily improved fatigue scores in women treated with blood transfusion is uncertain and this modest effect should be balanced against known risks, e.g. maternal mortality (not reported) and maternal immunological sensitisation, which can potentially harm future pregnancies.When comparing oral iron to placebo it remains unknown whether efficacy (relief of anaemia symptoms) outweighs the documented gastrointestinal harms.We could not draw conclusions regarding erythropoietin treatment due to lack of evidence.Further research should evaluate treatment effect through clinical outcomes, i.e. presence and severity of anaemia symptoms balanced against harms, i.e. survival and severe morbidity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 372 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 370 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 52 14%
Student > Bachelor 51 14%
Researcher 41 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 10%
Student > Postgraduate 22 6%
Other 53 14%
Unknown 115 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 111 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 47 13%
Psychology 16 4%
Social Sciences 14 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 3%
Other 41 11%
Unknown 131 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. 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 20 September 2022.
All research outputs
of 25,870,940 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 13,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 277,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 284 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,870,940 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 277,021 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 284 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.