Cargando…
Prevalence of iron deficiency in pregnant women: A prospective cross‐sectional Austrian study
The aim of the study was to determine, for the first time, in a prospective cross‐sectional multicenter study, the prevalence of iron deficiency (ID) in an Austrian pregnant population. A cohort of 425 pregnant women was classified into four groups of different weeks of gestation. Group 1 was monito...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8645778/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34925785 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.2588 |
_version_ | 1784610379126538240 |
---|---|
author | Zeisler, Harald Dietrich, Wolf Heinzl, Florian Klaritsch, Philipp Humpel, Victoria Moertl, Manfred Obruca, Christian Wimazal, Friedrich Ramoni, Angela Tiechl, Johanna Wentzel‐Schwarz, Elisabeth |
author_facet | Zeisler, Harald Dietrich, Wolf Heinzl, Florian Klaritsch, Philipp Humpel, Victoria Moertl, Manfred Obruca, Christian Wimazal, Friedrich Ramoni, Angela Tiechl, Johanna Wentzel‐Schwarz, Elisabeth |
author_sort | Zeisler, Harald |
collection | PubMed |
description | The aim of the study was to determine, for the first time, in a prospective cross‐sectional multicenter study, the prevalence of iron deficiency (ID) in an Austrian pregnant population. A cohort of 425 pregnant women was classified into four groups of different weeks of gestation. Group 1 was monitored longitudinally, while groups 2–4, iron status, were sampled only once. Evaluation of the prevalence of ID was performed by comparing the diagnostic criteria of the WHO to the cutoff proposed by Achebe MM and Gafter‐Gvili A (Achebe) and the Austrian Nutrition Report (ANR). In comparison with the ANR, the prevalence of ID was lower in group 1 and higher in groups 2–4 (17.2% vs. 12.17%, 25.84%, 35.29%, and 41.76%, respectively) (p‐values < .01 except group 1). According to WHO, the prevalence in group 1 was 12.17% at inclusion, 2 months later 31.7%, and further 2 months later 65.71%, respectively. According to Achebe, the number of cases doubled; for group 1, the number of cases rose from 13 to 42 (115 patients total); for groups 2–4, we observed an increase from 112 to 230 (340 patients total). This study reported a prevalence of around 12% at the beginning of pregnancy, which increased during pregnancy up to 65%. ID can have a massive impact on quality of life, justifying screening, as iron deficiency would be easy to diagnose and treat. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8645778 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-86457782021-12-17 Prevalence of iron deficiency in pregnant women: A prospective cross‐sectional Austrian study Zeisler, Harald Dietrich, Wolf Heinzl, Florian Klaritsch, Philipp Humpel, Victoria Moertl, Manfred Obruca, Christian Wimazal, Friedrich Ramoni, Angela Tiechl, Johanna Wentzel‐Schwarz, Elisabeth Food Sci Nutr Original Research The aim of the study was to determine, for the first time, in a prospective cross‐sectional multicenter study, the prevalence of iron deficiency (ID) in an Austrian pregnant population. A cohort of 425 pregnant women was classified into four groups of different weeks of gestation. Group 1 was monitored longitudinally, while groups 2–4, iron status, were sampled only once. Evaluation of the prevalence of ID was performed by comparing the diagnostic criteria of the WHO to the cutoff proposed by Achebe MM and Gafter‐Gvili A (Achebe) and the Austrian Nutrition Report (ANR). In comparison with the ANR, the prevalence of ID was lower in group 1 and higher in groups 2–4 (17.2% vs. 12.17%, 25.84%, 35.29%, and 41.76%, respectively) (p‐values < .01 except group 1). According to WHO, the prevalence in group 1 was 12.17% at inclusion, 2 months later 31.7%, and further 2 months later 65.71%, respectively. According to Achebe, the number of cases doubled; for group 1, the number of cases rose from 13 to 42 (115 patients total); for groups 2–4, we observed an increase from 112 to 230 (340 patients total). This study reported a prevalence of around 12% at the beginning of pregnancy, which increased during pregnancy up to 65%. ID can have a massive impact on quality of life, justifying screening, as iron deficiency would be easy to diagnose and treat. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-10-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8645778/ /pubmed/34925785 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.2588 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Food Science & Nutrition published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Zeisler, Harald Dietrich, Wolf Heinzl, Florian Klaritsch, Philipp Humpel, Victoria Moertl, Manfred Obruca, Christian Wimazal, Friedrich Ramoni, Angela Tiechl, Johanna Wentzel‐Schwarz, Elisabeth Prevalence of iron deficiency in pregnant women: A prospective cross‐sectional Austrian study |
title | Prevalence of iron deficiency in pregnant women: A prospective cross‐sectional Austrian study |
title_full | Prevalence of iron deficiency in pregnant women: A prospective cross‐sectional Austrian study |
title_fullStr | Prevalence of iron deficiency in pregnant women: A prospective cross‐sectional Austrian study |
title_full_unstemmed | Prevalence of iron deficiency in pregnant women: A prospective cross‐sectional Austrian study |
title_short | Prevalence of iron deficiency in pregnant women: A prospective cross‐sectional Austrian study |
title_sort | prevalence of iron deficiency in pregnant women: a prospective cross‐sectional austrian study |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8645778/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34925785 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.2588 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zeislerharald prevalenceofirondeficiencyinpregnantwomenaprospectivecrosssectionalaustrianstudy AT dietrichwolf prevalenceofirondeficiencyinpregnantwomenaprospectivecrosssectionalaustrianstudy AT heinzlflorian prevalenceofirondeficiencyinpregnantwomenaprospectivecrosssectionalaustrianstudy AT klaritschphilipp prevalenceofirondeficiencyinpregnantwomenaprospectivecrosssectionalaustrianstudy AT humpelvictoria prevalenceofirondeficiencyinpregnantwomenaprospectivecrosssectionalaustrianstudy AT moertlmanfred prevalenceofirondeficiencyinpregnantwomenaprospectivecrosssectionalaustrianstudy AT obrucachristian prevalenceofirondeficiencyinpregnantwomenaprospectivecrosssectionalaustrianstudy AT wimazalfriedrich prevalenceofirondeficiencyinpregnantwomenaprospectivecrosssectionalaustrianstudy AT ramoniangela prevalenceofirondeficiencyinpregnantwomenaprospectivecrosssectionalaustrianstudy AT tiechljohanna prevalenceofirondeficiencyinpregnantwomenaprospectivecrosssectionalaustrianstudy AT wentzelschwarzelisabeth prevalenceofirondeficiencyinpregnantwomenaprospectivecrosssectionalaustrianstudy |