ArticleGhana medical journal2024
A health facility-based assessment of the ancillary benefit for prevention of anaemia at term of intermittent preventive therapy with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine in pregnancy.
Article in Ghana medical journal, 2024. 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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to evaluate the ancillary benefit of intermittent preventive therapy with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (IPTp-SP) in preventing maternal anaemia (MA) among parturient women differentially exposed to the regimen. Design: A health facility-based retrospective analytical cross-sectional study. Settings: The study was conducted at the Kade Government Hospital's maternity/labor suit. Participants: Data from 2,545 parturient women were abstracted from birth registers. Statistical analysis: Baseline characteristics were described, and stratified analyses assessed their impacts. Differences in mean mHgbc based on IPTp-SP exposure were determined using one-way ANOVA. An unpaired two-sample t-test evaluated the significance of inter-dose group differences. The bivariable analysis examined crude and adjusted risks of anaemia with differential IPTp-SP exposure. Main outcome measure: The main outcome measure was the level of mHgbc with varying IPTp-SP exposure. Results: The overall mean exposure to IPTp-SP was 2.35 (±2.35) doses. Of the women, 5.9% had 'nil' exposure, with a mean mHgbc of 9.71 g/dL (±1.6). Among the 75.9% who received 1-3 doses, the mean mHgbc was 10.39 g/dL (±1.3). For the 18.2% who received ≥4 doses, the mean mHgbc was 10.77 g/dL (±1.4). The mHgbc notably rose as the mean doses of IPTp-SP increased. The crude odds ratios (COR) were 1.96 (95% CI: 0.99-3.89, p = 0.06) for 'nil' exposure, 1.28 (95% CI: 0.92-1.78, p = 0.16) for 1-3 doses, and 0.59 (95% CI: 0.41-0.84, p = 0.002) for ≥4 doses. Conclusion: The consistent linear increase in mean mHgbc with higher IPTp-SP doses remains clinically crucial. Funding: None declared.
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.