↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy and safety of hepcidin-based screen-and-treat approaches using two different doses versus a standard universal approach of iron supplementation in young children in rural Gambia: a double-blin…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pediatrics, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 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
Efficacy and safety of hepcidin-based screen-and-treat approaches using two different doses versus a standard universal approach of iron supplementation in young children in rural Gambia: a double-blind randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMC Pediatrics, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12887-016-0689-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rita Wegmüller, Amat Bah, Lindsay Kendall, Morgan M. Goheen, Sarah Mulwa, Carla Cerami, Diego Moretti, Andrew M. Prentice

Abstract

Iron deficiency prevalence rates frequently exceed 50 % in young children in low-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommended universal supplementation of young children where anaemia rates are >40 %. However, large randomized trials have revealed that provision of iron to young children caused serious adverse effects because iron powerfully promotes microbial growth. Hepcidin - the master regulator of iron metabolism that integrates signals of infection and iron deficiency - offers the possibility of new solutions to diagnose and combat global iron deficiency. We aim to evaluate a hepcidin-screening-based iron supplementation intervention using hepcidin cut-offs designed to indicate that an individual requires iron, is safe to receive it and will absorb it. The study is a proof-of-concept, three-arm, double blind, randomised controlled, prospective, parallel-group non-inferiority trial. Children will be randomised to receive, for a duration of 12 weeks, one of three multiple micronutrient powders (MNP) containing: A) 12 mg iron daily; B) 12 mg or 0 mg iron daily based on a weekly hepcidin screening indicating if iron can be given for the next seven days or not; C) 6 mg or 0 mg iron daily based on a weekly hepcidin screening indicating if iron can be given for the next seven days or not. The inclusion criteria are age 6-23 months, haemoglobin (Hb) concentration between 7 and 11 g/dL, z-scores for Height-for-Age, Weight-for-Age and Weight-for-Height > -3 SD and free of malaria. Hb concentration at 12 weeks will be used to test whether the screen-and-treat approaches are non-inferior to universal supplementation. Safety will be assessed using caregiver reports of infections, in vitro bacterial and P. falciparum growth assays and by determining the changes in the gut microbiota during the study period. A screen-and-treat approach using hepcidin has the potential to make iron administration safer in areas with widespread infections. If this proof-of-concept study shows promising results the development of a point-of-care diagnostic test will be the next step. ISRCTN07210906 , 07/16/2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 150 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 15%
Student > Bachelor 21 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Researcher 14 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Other 24 16%
Unknown 41 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 9%
Social Sciences 11 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 52 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 03 September 2016.
All research outputs
#14,270,031
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#1,820
of 3,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,679
of 337,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#24
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,015 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 337,400 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.