Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27196100›Full record

SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2016

Complexities and Perplexities: A Critical Appraisal of the Evidence for Soil-Transmitted Helminth Infection-Related Morbidity.

Suzy J Campbell, Susana V Nery, Suhail A Doi, Darren J Gray, Ricardo J Soares Magalhães, James S McCarthy, Rebecca J Traub, Ross M Andrews, Archie C A Clements

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Anthelmintic drugs for treating ascariasis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Diagnostic sensitivity of formalin-fixed faecal microscopy for the detection of soil-transmitted helminths.Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2025
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Suzy J CampbellResearch School of Population Health, College of Medicine, Biology, and Environment, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Captial Territory, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5540-1360
Susana V NeryResearch School of Population Health, College of Medicine, Biology, and Environment, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Captial Territory, Australia.
Suhail A DoiResearch School of Population Health, College of Medicine, Biology, and Environment, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Captial Territory, Australia.
Darren J GrayResearch School of Population Health, College of Medicine, Biology, and Environment, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Captial Territory, Australia.
Ricardo J Soares MagalhãesChildren's Health and Environment Program, Queensland Children's Medical Research Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
James S McCarthySchool of Population Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Rebecca J TraubFaculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Science, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Ross M AndrewsMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia.
Archie C A ClementsResearch School of Population Health, College of Medicine, Biology, and Environment, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Captial Territory, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSoil-transmitted helminths (STH) have acute and chronic manifestations, and can result in lifetime morbidity. Disease burden is difficult to quantify, yet quantitative evidence is required to justify large-scale deworming programmes. A recent Cochrane systematic review, which influences Global Burden of Disease (GBD) estimates for STH, has again called into question the evidence for deworming benefit on morbidity due to STH. In this narrative review, we investigate in detail what the shortfalls in evidence are. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsWe systematically reviewed recent literature that used direct measures to investigate morbidity from STH and we critically appraised systematic reviews, particularly the most recent Cochrane systematic review investigating deworming impact on morbidity. We included six systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 36 literature reviews, 44 experimental or observational studies, and five case series. We highlight where evidence is insufficient and where research needs to be directed to strengthen morbidity evidence, ideally to prove benefits of deworming. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Overall, the Cochrane systematic review and recent studies indicate major shortfalls in evidence for direct morbidity. However, it is questionable whether the systematic review methodology should be applied to STH due to heterogeneity of the prevalence of different species in each setting. Urgent investment in studies powered to detect direct morbidity effects due to STH is required.

Indexed as

AnemiaAnimalsAnthelminticsAscariasisAscaris lumbricoidesChronic DiseaseCost of IllnessHelminthiasisHumansPrevalenceSoilAnthelminticsSoil

Identifiers

PMID27196100
PMCPMC4873196

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.