↓ Skip to main content

Iron supplementation to treat anaemia in adult critical care patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

12 X users


42 Dimensions

Readers on

94 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.
Iron supplementation to treat anaemia in adult critical care patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Critical Care, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1486-z
Pubmed ID

Akshay Shah, Noémi B. Roy, Stuart McKechnie, Carolyn Doree, Sheila A. Fisher, Simon J. Stanworth


Anaemia affects 60-80 % of patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusions remain the mainstay of treatment for anaemia but are associated with risks and are costly. Our objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of iron supplementation by any route, in anaemic patients in adult ICUs. Electronic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE) were searched through March 2016 for randomized controlled trials (RCT)s comparing iron by any route with placebo/no iron. Primary outcomes were red blood cell transfusions and mean haemoglobin concentration. Secondary outcomes included mortality, infection, ICU and hospital length of stay, mean difference (MD) in iron biomarkers, health-related quality of life and adverse events. Five RCTs recruiting 665 patients met the inclusion criteria; intravenous iron was tested in four of the RCTs. There was no difference in allogeneic RBC transfusion requirements (relative risk 0.87, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.07, p = 0.18, five trials) or mean number of RBC units transfused (MD -0.45, 95 % CI -1.34 to 0.43, p = 0.32, two trials) in patients receiving or not receiving iron. Similarly, there was no difference between groups in haemoglobin at short-term (up to 10 days) (MD -0.25, 95 % CI -0.79 to 0.28, p = 0.35, three trials) or mid-term follow up (last measured time point in hospital or end of trial) (MD 0.21, 95 % CI -0.13 to 0.55, p = 0.23, three trials). There was no difference in secondary outcomes of mortality, in-hospital infection, or length of stay. Risk of bias was generally low although three trials had high risk of attrition bias; only one trial had low risk of bias across all domains. Iron supplementation does not reduce RBC transfusion requirements in critically ill adults, but there is considerable heterogeneity between trials in study design, nature of interventions, and outcomes. Well-designed trials are needed to investigate the optimal iron dosing regimens and strategies to identify which patients are most likely to benefit from iron, together with patient-focused outcomes. PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews CRD42015016627 . Registered 2 March 2015.

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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 93 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Student > Master 11 12%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 9 10%
Other 21 22%
Unknown 20 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 19 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 08 March 2023.
All research outputs
of 25,386,440 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
of 6,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 330,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,386,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 330,594 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.