Mass deworming for soil‐transmitted helminths and schistosomiasis among pregnant women: A systematic review and individual participant data meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.038 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".