论文部分内容阅读
[目的]比较NaFeEDTA与FeSO4改善铁缺乏的效果。[方法]通过检索电子数据库、手工检索相关期刊与书籍、查找会议摘要、联系相关领域专家,并通过查找参考文献进行了全面的文献检索;使用CochraneEPOC制定的标准对纳入研究的质量进行了评价;使用广义倒方差法进行Meta分析。[结果]2项有对照的前后比较研究符合纳入标准。Meta分析显示,与FeSO4组相比NaFeEDTA组具有更高的血红蛋白浓度(加权均差7.01g/L,95%可信区间3.57～10.45;P﹤0.0001)、更低的铁缺乏性贫血患病率(率差-26%,95%可信区间-44%～-8%;P=0.004)。[结论]NaFeEDTA改善铁缺乏的效果很可能优于FeSO4,足够强度的证据还需随机对照试验的支持。
[Objective] To compare the effect of NaFeEDTA and FeSO4 on iron deficiency. [Methods] By searching electronic databases, searching related journals and books by hand, finding conference abstracts, contacting experts in relevant fields and conducting a comprehensive literature search through searching references; using the criteria set by Cochrane EPOC to evaluate the quality of the included studies; Meta-analysis was performed using the generalized inverse variance method. [Results] The two controlled studies before and after complied with the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis showed that the NaFeEDTA group had higher hemoglobin concentrations (weighted mean 7.01 g / L, 95% confidence interval 3.57 to 10.45; P <0.0001), lower prevalence of iron deficiency anemia than the FeSO4 group (Rate difference -26%, 95% confidence interval -44% -8%; P = 0.004). [Conclusion] The effect of NaFeEDTA in improving iron deficiency is likely to be superior to that of FeSO4. Evidence of adequate strength is also supported by randomized controlled trials.