Evidence Hub

Efficacy of different routes of vitamin B12 supplementation for the treatment of patients with vitamin B12 deficiency: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

O. Abdelwahab, Ahmed Abdelaziz, Sherein Diab, Ali Khazragy, T. Elboraay, Taha Fayad, R. Diab, Ahmed Negida

Irish Journal of Medical Science, 2024

4,275 participants · 42 citations

Abstract

Background This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the three different administration routes of vitamin B12: oral, intramuscular (IM), and sublingual (SL) routes. Methods We searched four electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials). We included only comparative studies. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis to measure network estimates for the relative outcomes. Moreover, we conducted a pairwise meta-analysis using a random effect model to obtain direct estimates for outcomes. All outcomes were continuous, and the relative treatment effects were pooled as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals. Results Thirteen studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 4275 patients. Regarding increasing vitamin B12 levels, the IM route ranked first, followed by the SL route (MD = 94.09 and 43.31 pg/mL, respectively) compared to the oral route. However, these differences did not reach statistical significance owing to the limited number of studies. Regarding the hemoglobin level, the pooled effect sizes showed no difference between all routes of administration that could reach statistical significance. However, the top two ranked administration routes were the oral route (78.3) and the IM route (49.6). Conclusion All IM, oral, and SL routes of administration of vitamin B12 can effectively increase the level of vitamin B12 without significant differences between…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 4,275 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free