Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29852012›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2018

Deworming in pre-school age children: A global empirical analysis of health outcomes.

Nathan C Lo, Jedidiah Snyder, David G Addiss, Sam Heft-Neal, Jason R Andrews, Eran Bendavid

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The Life Histories of Intermediate Hosts and Parasites ofInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

6 authors.

Nathan C LoDivision of Epidemiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5407-2005
Jedidiah SnyderChildren Without Worms, Task Force for Global Health, Decatur, GA, United States of America.
David G AddissChildren Without Worms, Task Force for Global Health, Decatur, GA, United States of America.
Sam Heft-NealDepartment of Earth System Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9129-2365
Jason R AndrewsDivision of Infectious Diseases and Geographic Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States of America.
Eran BendavidPrimary Care and Population Health, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is debate over the effectiveness of deworming children against soil-transmitted helminthiasis (STH) to improve health outcomes, and current evidence may be limited in study design and generalizability. However, programmatic deworming continues throughout low and middle-income countries. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL

findingsWe performed an empirical evaluation of the relationship between deworming in pre-school age children (ages 1-4 years) within the previous 6 months, as proxy-reported by the mother, and health outcomes of weight, height, and hemoglobin. We used nationally representative cross-sectional data from 45 countries using the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) during the period 2005-2016. We used logistic regression with coarsened exact matching, fixed effects for survey and year, and person-level covariates. We included data on 325,115 children in 45 STH-endemic countries from 66 DHS surveys. Globally in STH-endemic countries, children who received deworming treatment were less likely to be stunted (1.2 percentage point decline from mean of 36%; 95% CI [-1.9, -0.5%]; p<0.001), but we did not detect consistent associations between deworming and anemia or weight. In sub-Saharan Africa, we found that children who received deworming treatment were less likely to be stunted (1.1 percentage point decline from mean of 36%; 95% CI [-2.1, -0.2%]; p = 0.01) and less likely to have anemia (1.8 percentage point decline from mean of 58%; 95% CI [-2.8, -0.7%]; p<0.001), but we did not detect consistent associations between deworming and weight. These findings were robust across multiple statistical models, and we did not find consistently measurable associations with data from non-endemic settings. CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE: Among pre-school age children, we detected a robust and consistent association between deworming and reduced stunting, with additional evidence for reduced anemia in sub-Saharan Africa. We did not find a consistent relationship between deworming and improved weight. This global empirical analysis provides evidence to support the deworming of pre-school age children.

Indexed as

Patient Outcome AssessmentAnemiaAnthelminticsBody WeightChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHelminthiasisHumansInfantLogistic ModelsMaleNutritional StatusRegression AnalysisSoilWeight GainAnthelminticsSoil

Identifiers

PMID29852012
PMCPMC5997348

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.