Hinton 2007.

Methods	Design: randomised controlled trial Randomisation: individual Trial: daily oral iron versus placebo Date of study: not stated
Participants	Setting: recruited from University of Missouri Colombia (USA) and surrounding community via fliers and newspaper advertisements Malaria endemicity: not stated Included: 17 women and 3 men, aged 18 years to 41 years (mean age 28 years). Participants were iron deficient (serum ferritin < 16 mg/L; serum transferrin receptor > 48.0 mg/L; or transferrin receptor/log ferritin index > 44.5) and non‐anaemic (haemoglobin > 120 g/L for women; > 130 g/L for men) Excluded: current pregnancy or pregnancy within the previous year, recent infectious illness or fever, chronic inflammatory diseases, haemolytic anaemia, musculoskeletal problems, history of eating disorders, smoking, or consumption of iron supplements or medications that may interfere with dietary iron absorption or that have anticoagulant properties Dropouts: no reported dropouts Sample size: total: 20; intervention: 10, control: 10
Interventions	Intervention: ferrous sulphate equivalent to 30 mg elemental iron Control: placebo Duration: 6 weeks
Outcomes	Haemoglobin, iron status, exercise performance, fat mass, height, weight
Notes	Compliance: on average, participants in the iron group ingested 98 (±8.2)% and the placebo group 99 (±5.4)% of their supplements. There was no significant difference in compliance between the two groups Conflicts of interest: trial authors report no conflict of interest Funded by: no funding reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Method for sequence generation not stated
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Method for allocation concealment not stated
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Placebo administered
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported. Measurement of exercise performance may be influenced by knowledge of allocation
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No attrition
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Not evident
Other bias	Low risk	The study appears free of other sources of bias