Objective To compare the safety and economy of oral and intravenous iron supplementation under the guidance of clinical pharmacists.Methods The clinical data of 224 perioperative patients with mild to moderate iron deficiency anemia admitted to the Gynecology Department of Nanjing Maternal and Child Health Hospital from January 2016 to December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed.All patients were treated with pharmaceutical intervention by clinical pharmacists,and were divided into the oral iron group (119 cases) and the intravenous iron group (105 cases)according to different treatment methods.The oral iron group was supplemented with oral iron,and the intravenous iron group was supplemented with intravenous iron sucrose and oral iron.Blood transfusion rate,postoperative infection rate,postoperative cardiac function changes,Class A incision healing rate,ICU occupancy rate,total days of hospital stay,readmission rate and drug cost were compared between the two groups.Results There was no significant difference in blood transfusion rate between the two groups (P＞0.05).There were no significant differences in postoperative infection rate,postoperative cardiac function change,Class A incision healing rate,ICU occupancy rate (case fatality rate),total length of stay,7 d and 30 d readmission rate between the two groups (P＞0.05).The total cost of anemia treatment in intravenous iron group was higher than that in oral iron group,and the difference was statistically significant (P＜0.05).Conclusion Oral iron supplementation can effectively correct iron deficiency and anemia,with better safety,and more economical benefits,which provides strong support for subsequent pharmaceutical interventions.