Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29088274›Full record

SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2017

Systematic review of studies generating individual participant data on the efficacy of drugs for treating soil-transmitted helminthiases and the case for data-sharing.

Julia B Halder, Joanne Benton, Amélie M Julé, Phillipe J Guérin, Piero L Olliaro, María-Gloria Basáñez, Martin Walker

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Julia B HalderDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology and London Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research, Imperial College London, Norfolk Place, London, United Kingdom.
Joanne BentonIndependent Researcher, London, United Kingdom.
Amélie M JuléInfectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO), University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Phillipe J GuérinInfectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO), University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Piero L OlliaroCentre for Global Health and Tropical Medicine, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
María-Gloria BasáñezDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology and London Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research, Imperial College London, Norfolk Place, London, United Kingdom.
Martin WalkerDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology and London Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research, Imperial College London, Norfolk Place, London, United Kingdom.
Infectious Diseases Data Observatory · GBLondon Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research · GBImperial College London · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPreventive chemotherapy and transmission control (PCT) by mass drug administration is the cornerstone of the World Health Organization (WHO)'s policy to control soil-transmitted helminthiases (STHs) caused by Ascaris lumbricoides (roundworm), Trichuris trichiura (whipworm) and hookworm species (Necator americanus and Ancylostama duodenale) which affect over 1 billion people globally. Despite consensus that drug efficacies should be monitored for signs of decline that could jeopardise the effectiveness of PCT, systematic monitoring and evaluation is seldom implemented. Drug trials mostly report aggregate efficacies in groups of participants, but heterogeneities in design complicate classical meta-analyses of these data. Individual participant data (IPD) permit more detailed analysis of drug efficacies, offering increased sensitivity to identify atypical responses potentially caused by emerging drug resistance. METHODOLOGY: We performed a systematic literature review to identify studies concluding after 2000 that collected IPD suitable for estimating drug efficacy against STH. We included studies that administered a variety of anthelmintics with follow ups less than 60 days after treatment. We estimated the number of IPD and extracted cohort- and study-level meta-data. PRINCIPAL

findingsWe estimate that there exist individual data on approximately 35,000 participants from 129 studies conducted in 39 countries, including 34 out of 103 countries where PCT is recommended. We find significant heterogeneity in diagnostic methods, times of outcome assessment, and the reported measure of efficacy. We also quantify cohorts comprising pre-school age children, pregnant women, and co-infected participants, including with HIV.

conclusionsWe argue that establishing a global IPD repository would improve the capacity to monitor and evaluate the efficacy of anthelmintic drugs, respond to changes and safeguard the ongoing effectiveness of PCT. Establishing a fair, transparent data governance policy will be key for the engagement of the global STH community.

Indexed as

AnthelminticsClinical Trials as TopicHelminthiasisHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicSoilAnthelminticsSoil

Identifiers

PMID29088274
PMCPMC5681297
OpenAlexW2767022590

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.