ArticleBMJ paediatrics open2021
Mass drug administration campaigns for scabies and impetigo: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ paediatrics open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Scabies is recognised as a neglected tropical disease, disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable populations around the world. Impetigo often occurs secondarily to scabies. Several studies have explored mass drug administration (MDA) programmes, with some showing positive outcomes-but a systematic evaluation of such studies is yet to be reported. The main aim of this systematic review is to generate comprehensive evidence on the effect and feasibility of MDA programmes in reducing the burden of scabies and impetigo. Methods and analysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement. Electronic databases to be searched will include CINAHL EBSCOhost, Medline Ovid, ProQuest, Science Direct, PubMed and SCOPUS. In addition, grey literature will be explored via the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet, Informit, OaIster database and WHO. No language restrictions will be applied. All treatment studies following an MDA protocol, including randomised/quasi-controlled trials, and prospective before-after interventional studies, will be considered. The main outcome is the change in prevalence of scabies and impetigo The Cochrane collaboration risk of bias assessment tool will be used for assessing the methodological quality of studies. A random-effect restricted maximum likelihood meta-analysis will be performed to generate pooled effect (OR) using STATA V.16. Appropriate statistical tests will be carried out to quantify heterogeneity between studies and publication bias. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval is not required since data will be extracted from published works. The findings will be communicated to the scientific community through a peer-reviewed journal publication. This systematic review will present an evidence on the effect of MDA interventions on scabies and impetigo, which is instrumental to obtain a clear understanding of the treatments widely used in these programmes. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020169544.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.