↓ Skip to main content

Effects of long-term weekly iron and folic acid supplementation on lower genital tract infection – a double blind, randomised controlled trial in Burkina Faso

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
224 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
Effects of long-term weekly iron and folic acid supplementation on lower genital tract infection – a double blind, randomised controlled trial in Burkina Faso
Published in
BMC Medicine, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0967-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Loretta Brabin, Stephen A. Roberts, Sabine Gies, Andrew Nelson, Salou Diallo, Christopher J. Stewart, Adama Kazienga, Julia Birtles, Sayouba Ouedraogo, Yves Claeys, Halidou Tinto, Umberto d’Alessandro, E. Brian Faragher, Bernard Brabin

Abstract

Provision of routine iron supplements to prevent anaemia could increase the risk for lower genital tract infections as virulence of some pathogens depends on iron availability. This trial in Burkina Faso assessed whether weekly periconceptional iron supplementation increased the risk of lower genital tract infection in young non-pregnant and pregnant women. Genital tract infections were assessed within a double blind, controlled, non-inferiority trial of malaria risk among nulliparous women, randomised to receive either iron and folic acid or folic acid alone, weekly, under direct observation for 18 months. Women conceiving during this period entered the pregnancy cohort. End assessment (FIN) for women remaining non-pregnant was at 18 months. For the pregnancy cohort, end assessment was at the first scheduled antenatal visit (ANC1). Infection markers included Nugent scores for abnormal flora and bacterial vaginosis (BV), T. vaginalis PCR, vaginal microbiota, reported signs and symptoms, and antibiotic and anti-fungal prescriptions. Iron biomarkers were assessed at baseline, FIN and ANC1. Analysis compared outcomes by intention to treat and in iron replete/deficient categories. A total of 1954 women (mean 16.8 years) were followed and 478 (24.5%) became pregnant. Median supplement adherence was 79% (IQR 59-90%). Baseline BV prevalence was 12.3%. At FIN and ANC1 prevalence was 12.8% and 7.0%, respectively (P < 0.011). T. vaginalis prevalence was 4.9% at FIN and 12.9% at ANC1 (P < 0.001). BV and T. vaginalis prevalence and microbiota profiles did not differ at trial end-points. Iron-supplemented non-pregnant women received more antibiotic treatments for non-genital infections (P = 0.014; mainly gastrointestinal infections (P = 0.005), anti-fungal treatments for genital infections (P = 0.014) and analgesics (P = 0.008). Weekly iron did not significantly reduce iron deficiency prevalence. At baseline, iron-deficient women were more likely to have normal vaginal flora (P = 0.016). Periconceptional weekly iron supplementation of young women did not increase the risk of lower genital tract infections but did increase general morbidity in the non-pregnant cohort. Unabsorbed gut iron due to malaria could induce enteric infections, accounting for the increased administration of antibiotics and antifungals in the iron-supplemented arm. This finding reinforces concerns about routine iron supplementation in highly malarious areas. Trial registration number NCT01210040 . Registered with Clinicaltrials.gov on 27 September 2010.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 224 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 224 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 16%
Student > Bachelor 25 11%
Researcher 24 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 5%
Other 42 19%
Unknown 69 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 15%
Social Sciences 10 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 4%
Other 32 14%
Unknown 81 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 28 November 2017.
All research outputs
#6,539,710
of 23,313,051 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,458
of 3,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,536
of 439,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#30
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,313,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,508 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.7. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 439,748 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.