Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37131518›Full record

ReviewCampbell systematic reviews2019

Mass deworming for soil-transmitted helminths and schistosomiasis among pregnant women: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

R A Salam, S Cousens, V Welch, M Gaffey, P Middleton, M Makrides, P Arora, Z A Bhutta

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Campbell systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Biology of Anemia: A Public Health Perspective.The Journal of nutrition · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

R A SalamHealthy Mother, Babies and Children Theme South Australian Health and MedicalResearch Institute Adelaide Australia.
S CousensMaternal Adolescent Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH) Centre London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine London UK.
V WelchSchool of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine University of Ottawa Ottawa Canada.
M GaffeyCentre for Global Child Health The Hospital for Sick Children Toronto Canada.
P MiddletonHealthy Mother, Babies and Children Theme South Australian Health and MedicalResearch Institute Adelaide Australia.
M MakridesHealthy Mother, Babies and Children Theme South Australian Health and MedicalResearch Institute Adelaide Australia.
P AroraDalla Lana School of Public Health University of Toronto Toronto Canada.
Z A BhuttaCentre for Global Child Health The Hospital for Sick Children Toronto Canada.
South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute · AUAga Khan University · PKHospital for Sick Children · CALondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of Ottawa · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of the review is to use individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to explore the effect of mass deworming during pregnancy. We developed a search strategy and searched the databases till March 2018. We included individually randomised controlled trials; cluster randomised controlled trials and quasi randomised studies providing preventive or therapeutic deworming drugs for soil transmitted helminthiases and schistosomiasis during pregnancy. All IPD were assessed for completeness, compared to published reports and entered into a common data spreadsheet. Out of the seven trials elgible for IPD, we received data from three trials; out of 8,515 potential IPD participants; data were captured for 5,957 participants. Findings from this IPD suggest that mass deworming during pregnancy reduces maternal anaemia by 23% (Risk ratio [RR]: 0.77, 95% confidence intreval [CI]: 0.73-0.81; three trials; 5,216 participants; moderate quality evidence). We did not find any evidence of an effect of mass deworming during pregnancy on any of the other outcomes. There was no evidence of effect modification; however these findings should be interpreted with caution due to small sample sizes. The quality of evidence was rated as moderate for our findings. Our analyses suggest that mass deworming during pregnancy is associated with reducing anaemia with no evidence of impact on any other maternal or pregnancy outcomes. Our analyses were limited by the availability of data for the impact by subgroups and effect modification. There is also a need to support and promote open data for future IPDs.

Identifiers

PMID37131518
PMCPMC8356523
OpenAlexW2957529749

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.