ReviewCampbell systematic reviews2019
Mass deworming for improving health and cognition of children in endemic helminth areas: A systematic review and individual participant data network meta-analysis.
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 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cohort profile: the Entebbe Mother and Baby Study (EMaBS).BMJ open · 2026Trial
- PRIME-IPD SERIES Part 1. The PRIME-IPD tool promoted verification and standardization of study datasets retrieved for IPD meta-analysis.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Article
- Mass deworming for improving health and cognition of children in endemic helminth areas: A systematic review and individual participant data network meta-analysis.Campbell systematic reviews · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors at 20 institutions in 15 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Soil transmitted (or intestinal) helminths and schistosomes affect millions of children worldwide. Objectives: To use individual participant data network meta-analysis (NMA) to explore the effects of different types and frequency of deworming drugs on anaemia, cognition and growth across potential effect modifiers. Search Methods: We developed a search strategy with an information scientist to search MEDLINE, CINAHL, LILACS, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Econlit, Internet Documents in Economics Access Service (IDEAS), Public Affairs Information Service (PAIS), Social Services Abstracts, Global Health CABI and CAB Abstracts up to March 27, 2018. We also searched grey literature, websites, contacted authors and screened references of relevant systematic reviews. Selection Criteria: We included randomised and quasirandomised deworming trials in children for deworming compared to placebo or other interventions with data on baseline infection. Data Collection and Analysis: We conducted NMA with individual participant data (IPD), using a frequentist approach for random-effects NMA. The covariates were: age, sex, weight, height, haemoglobin and infection intensity. The effect estimate chosen was the mean difference for the continuous outcome of interest. Results: We received data from 19 randomized controlled trials with 31,945 participants. Overall risk of bias was low. There were no statistically significant subgroup effects across any of the potential effect modifiers. However, analyses showed that there may be greater effects on weight for moderate to heavily infected children (very low certainty evidence). Authors' Conclusions: This analysis reinforces the case against mass deworming at a population-level, finding little effect on nutritional status or cognition. However, children with heavier intensity infections may benefit more. We urge the global community to adopt calls to make data available in open repositories to facilitate IPD analyses such as this, which aim to assess effects for the most vulnerable individuals.
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.