Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary of the results and quality assessment of the observational studies included in this review

From: Subnormal vitamin B12 concentrations and anaemia in older people: a systematic review

Author

Year of publication

Sample size (N)

Age of subjects (years)

Study population

Presence of an association between subnormal vitamin B12 and anaemia

Quality of study*

Cross-sectional

Population-based

Allain [27]

1997

233

≥60, median 72

Random sample of older Zimbabweans (rural and urban).

?

5

Björkegren [28]

2001

224

≥70, mean 78.0 (95% CI 77.2-78.9)

Random sample of persons aged 70 years and over in the Borough of Älvkarleby in the county of Uppsala, Sweden

-

6

Clarke [29]

2008

2257

≥65, mean 79.2 (SD 6.2)

Oxford Healthy Aging Project: Random sample from general practice registers of people ≥65 years living in Oxford, UK. Banbury B12 Study: Random sample of people aged ≥75 years living in their own homes and registered with general practices in Banbury, Oxfordshire, UK.

+

6

Hin [30]

2006

1000

≥75, mean 81.4 (SD 4.6)

Random sample of people ≥75 years living at home, registered with general practitioners in Banbury, England

-

4

Hvas [31]

2005

937

Median 72, range 19-102

Subjects with increased MMA (>0.28 μmol/L) within in Aarhus, Denmark, from 1995-2000.

-

5

Johnson [32]

2003

103

≥60, mean 76.4 (SD 8.1)

Older individuals enlisted in nutrition service program in rural northeast Georgia, USA.

?

4

Lippi[33]

2009

878

Range 85-101

Unselected subjects older than 85 years, who were referred by general practitioners to a laboratory in Verona, Italy, for routine diagnostic check-up over a period of 2 years

-

6

Loikas [34]

2007

1048

≥65, 37% ≥75

Lieto study; unselected population based health survey in Lieto, Finland.

-

6

McLennan [35]

1973

347

>65

Random sample of people >65 years living at home in Kilsyth and Northern Glasgow, UK.

?

5

Morris [36]

2007

1459

≥60, mean 70 (SEM 0.32)

Non-institutionalized civilian population (NHANES), USA.

+

5

Penninx [37]

2000

700

≥65, mean 77.3

Physically disabled older women living in the community (Women's Health and Ageing Study), Baltimore area, USA

?

4

Hospitalized/Institutionalized

Bisbe[38]

2009

599

Mean 68 (SD 13)

All consecutive patients scheduled for major orthopaedic surgery for which blood was routinely grouped preoperatively in University Hospital in Barcelona, Spain.

-

5

Chui [39]

2001

3453

48% >70

All patients admitted to the Prince of Wales hospital, Hong Kong, with vitamin B12 measurements in 1996.

-

5

Joosten [40]

1990

292

>65

Consecutive patients admitted to the geriatric department of the University Hospital, Leuven, Belgium

?

5

Kwok [41]

2002

96

>55, mean age >78.0

Female ambulatory vegetarians (>3 years) in Hong Kong.

?

5

Metz [42]

1996

94

Cases: mean 79.8 Controls: mean 80.7

Patients with suspected low vitamin B12 levels based on clinical examination by attending staff in Royal Melbourne and North West hospitals, Australia. If low vitamin B12: case. If normal vitamin B12: control.

-

2

Mooney [43]

2004

905

65-85

Hospitalized patients in Belfast, Ireland, who had vitamin B12, folate, Hb, MCV and ferritin measured within ±4 days of each other in February-July 2003

-

3

Prayurahong [44]

1993

147

≥60

Subjects visiting clinic for older individuals in Rajvithi Hospital, Bangkok

?

3

Stott [45]

1997

290

Range 62-110

Consecutive new referrals to a geriatric medical unit in Glasgow, Scotland.

-

5

Wang [46]

2009

827

Mean 77.1 (SD 7.5), range 60-96

Patients in the department of Neurology of Shanghai Punan Hospital, Shanghai, China.

+

4

Witte [47]

2004

296

Mean 72.5 (10.3)

Consecutive patients with chronic heart failure attending a heart failure clinic in Cottingham, UK

-

4

Longitudinal

Den Elzen [48]

2008

423

85

All 85-year-old inhabitants of Leiden, the Netherlands. Participants using vitamin B12 or folate supplements at baseline or during follow-up were excluded.

-

7

  1. *Based on checklists from van der Windt et al [23, 24]. Higher scores indicate higher quality (range cross-sectional studies 0-7; longitudinal studies 0-9). Cross-sectional studies that scored 5 points or more were considered 'high quality'. Longitudinal studies that scored 7 points or more were considered 'high quality'.