Mal J Nutr 22(2): 317 - 323, 2016

SHORT COMMUNICATION

Comparing the Effectiveness of Oral Supplementation and Intramuscular Injection of Vitamin B12 for Treating Cobalamin Deficiency: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Kyung Eun Lee1, Hyo Jin Park2, Yinghua Cui3

1Yeungnam University College, School of Nursing, Daegu, South Korea
2 Yeungjin College of Nursing, Daegu, South Korea
3 Yanbian University of Science & Technology School of Nursing, Yanji, China


ABSTRACT

Introduction: The common treatments for vitamin B 12 (Vit.B12) deficiency are oral supplementation (OS) and intramuscular (IM) injection. However, there have been debates on which treatment is more effective. Therefore, this analysis is aimed at comparing the effectiveness of OS and IM injection using systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A search was undertaken in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and KoreaMed for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the study subject. We included papers that compared OS and IM injection methods for vitamin B12 treatment for cobalamin deficient patients. Changes in vitamin B12 serum levels before and after the treatments were compared. SPSS program version 18.0 and Review Manager 5.2 were used. Results: The search revealed only three appropriate studies for our analysis, involving a total of 141 patients, out of whom, 66 were given OS and 75 IM injection. The standardised mean difference (SMD) between OS and IM injection was 0.14 (95% CI = -0.20, 0.48, p = 0.42). In considering tolerability, adverse events, and cost, OS was found to be better than IM injection. Conclusions: OS is recommended over IM injection for Vit.B12 treatment method.

Keywords: Cobalamin, meta-analysis, systematic review, vitamin B12 vitamin B12 deficiency

Download full article

March 1995, Vol1 No.1
September 1995, Vol1 No.2
March 1996, Vol2 No.1
September 1996, Vol2 No.2
March 1997, Vol3 No.1
September 1997, Vol3 No.2
December 1998, Vol4 No.1&2
December 1999, Vol5 No.1&2
March 2000, Vol6 No.1
September 2000, Vol6 No.2
Mar/Sept 2001, Vol7 No.1&2
March 2002, Vol8, No.1
September 2002, Vol8, No.2
March 2003, Vol9 No.1
September 2003, Vol9 No.2
March 2004, Vol10 No.1
September 2004, Vol10 No. 2
2005, Vol 11 No.1
2005, Vo l11 No.2
2006, Vol 12 No.1
2006, Vol 12 No.2
2007, Vol 13 No.1
2007, Vol 13 No.2
March 2008, Vol 14 No.1
2008, Vol 14 No.2
2009, Vol 15 No.1
2009, Vol 15 No.2
2010, Vol 16(1)

2010, Vol 16(2)

2010, Vol 16(3)

2011, Vol 17(1)

2011, Vol 17(2)

2011, Vol 17(3)

2012, Vol 18(1)

2012, Vol 18(2)

2012, Vol 18(3)

2013, Vol 19(1)

2013, Vol 19(2)

2013, Vol 19(3)

2014, Vol 20(1)

2014, Vol 20(2)

2014, Vol 20(3)

2015, Vol 21(1)

2015, Vol 21(2)

2015, Vol 21(3)

2016, Vol 22(1)

2016, Vol 22(2)

2016, Vol 22 Supplement

2016, Vol 22(3)

2017, Vol 23(1)

2017, Vol 23(2)