Oral vitamin B12 versus intramuscular vitamin B12 for vitamin B12 deficiency.

What It Covers

Researchers studied Cyanocobalamin (Vitamin B12) in this systematic review publication.

To assess the effects of oral vitamin B12 versus intramuscular vitamin B12 for vitamin B12 deficiency.

The researchers used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for important outcomes.

Why It Was Studied

Most people with vitamin B12 deficiency are treated in primary care with intramuscular (IM) vitamin B12.

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of oral versus IM vitamin B12 for vitamin B12 deficiency.

Who the Included Studies Covered

By PubMed's age tags, the people studied were older adults.

How the Review Was Done

The researchers searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS, as well as the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov.

The latest search date was 17 July 2017.

The researchers applied no language restrictions.

The researchers also contacted authors of relevant trials to enquire about other published or unpublished studies and ongoing trials.

What Was Measured

Most people with vitamin B12 deficiency are treated in primary care with intramuscular (IM) vitamin B12.

Their primary outcomes were serum vitamin B12 levels, clinical signs and symptoms of vitamin B12 deficiency, and adverse events.

The subject headings attached to it are Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Vitamin B 12, Vitamin B 12 Deficiency and Vitamin B Complex.

What This Means in Plain Language

This is a systematic review of Cyanocobalamin (Vitamin B12).

Its findings take up roughly 19 sentences of the abstract and are left out here on purpose; the source paper is the place to read them.

The publication is from 2018 (The Cochrane database of systematic reviews), a journal based in England.

More context: the Cyanocobalamin (Vitamin B12) compound page, all human trials.