This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (14 NOV 2012)

Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Deworming drugs for soil-transmitted intestinal worms in children: effects on nutritional indicators, haemoglobin and school performance

  1. David C Taylor-Robinson1,*,
  2. Nicola Maayan2,
  3. Karla Soares-Weiser2,
  4. Sarah Donegan1,
  5. Paul Garner1

Editorial Group: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group

Published Online: 11 JUL 2012

Assessed as up-to-date: 31 MAY 2012

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000371.pub4


How to Cite

Taylor-Robinson DC, Maayan N, Soares-Weiser K, Donegan S, Garner P. Deworming drugs for soil-transmitted intestinal worms in children: effects on nutritional indicators, haemoglobin and school performance. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 7. Art. No.: CD000371. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000371.pub4.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, International Health Group, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK

  2. 2

    Enhance Reviews Ltd, Wantage, UK

*David C Taylor-Robinson, International Health Group, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, Merseyside, L3 5QA, UK. David.Taylor-Robinson@liverpool.ac.uk.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New search for studies and content updated (no change to conclusions)
  2. Published Online: 11 JUL 2012

SEARCH

This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (14 NOV 2012)

[Figure 1]
Figure 1.
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
[Figure 3]
Figure 3. Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Screened for infection - Single dose, Outcome 1 Weight (kg).
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Screened for infection - Single dose, Outcome 2 Height (cm).
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Screened for infection - Single dose, Outcome 3 Mid-upper arm circumference (cm).
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Screened for infection - Single dose, Outcome 4 Triceps skin fold thickness (mm).
[Analysis 1.5]
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 Screened for infection - Single dose, Outcome 5 Subscapular skin fold thickness (mm).
[Analysis 1.6]
Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 Screened for infection - Single dose, Outcome 6 Body mass index.
[Analysis 1.7]
Analysis 1.7. Comparison 1 Screened for infection - Single dose, Outcome 7 Haemoglobin (g/dL).
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Screened for infection - Multiple dose, outcomes in the first year, Outcome 1 Body mass index.
[Analysis 2.2]
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Screened for infection - Multiple dose, outcomes in the first year, Outcome 2 School attendance (days present at school).
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Target population treated - Single dose, Outcome 1 Weight (kg).
[Analysis 3.2]
Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 Target population treated - Single dose, Outcome 2 Height (cm).
[Analysis 3.3]
Analysis 3.3. Comparison 3 Target population treated - Single dose, Outcome 3 Mid-upper arm circumference (cm).
[Analysis 3.4]
Analysis 3.4. Comparison 3 Target population treated - Single dose, Outcome 4 Triceps skin fold thickness (mm).
[Analysis 3.5]
Analysis 3.5. Comparison 3 Target population treated - Single dose, Outcome 5 Subscapular skin fold thickness (mm).
[Analysis 3.6]
Analysis 3.6. Comparison 3 Target population treated - Single dose, Outcome 6 Haemoglobin (g/dL).
[Analysis 3.7]
Analysis 3.7. Comparison 3 Target population treated - Single dose, Outcome 7 Harvard Step Test (measure of physical well being).
[Analysis 4.1]
Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 Target population treated - Multiple dose, outcomes in the first year, Outcome 1 Weight (kg).
[Analysis 4.2]
Analysis 4.2. Comparison 4 Target population treated - Multiple dose, outcomes in the first year, Outcome 2 Height (cm).
[Analysis 4.3]
Analysis 4.3. Comparison 4 Target population treated - Multiple dose, outcomes in the first year, Outcome 3 Mid-upper arm circumference (cm).
[Analysis 4.4]
Analysis 4.4. Comparison 4 Target population treated - Multiple dose, outcomes in the first year, Outcome 4 Triceps skin fold thickness (mm).
[Analysis 4.5]
Analysis 4.5. Comparison 4 Target population treated - Multiple dose, outcomes in the first year, Outcome 5 Subscapular skin fold thickness (mm).
[Analysis 4.6]
Analysis 4.6. Comparison 4 Target population treated - Multiple dose, outcomes in the first year, Outcome 6 Haemoglobin (g/dL).
[Analysis 4.7]
Analysis 4.7. Comparison 4 Target population treated - Multiple dose, outcomes in the first year, Outcome 7 School attendance (days present at school).
[Analysis 5.1]
Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Target population treated - Multiple dose, outcomes after the first year, Outcome 1 Weight (kg).
[Analysis 5.2]
Analysis 5.2. Comparison 5 Target population treated - Multiple dose, outcomes after the first year, Outcome 2 Height (cm).
[Analysis 5.3]
Analysis 5.3. Comparison 5 Target population treated - Multiple dose, outcomes after the first year, Outcome 3 Haemoglobin (g/dL).
[Analysis 5.4]
Analysis 5.4. Comparison 5 Target population treated - Multiple dose, outcomes after the first year, Outcome 4 School attendance (days present at school).
[Analysis 6.1]
Analysis 6.1. Comparison 6 Target population treated - Single dose (low risk of bias for allocation concealment), Outcome 1 Weight (kg).
[Analysis 6.2]
Analysis 6.2. Comparison 6 Target population treated - Single dose (low risk of bias for allocation concealment), Outcome 2 Height (cm).
[Analysis 6.3]
Analysis 6.3. Comparison 6 Target population treated - Single dose (low risk of bias for allocation concealment), Outcome 3 Mid-upper arm circumference (cm).
[Analysis 6.4]
Analysis 6.4. Comparison 6 Target population treated - Single dose (low risk of bias for allocation concealment), Outcome 4 Haemoglobin (g/dL).
[Analysis 7.1]
Analysis 7.1. Comparison 7 Target population treated - Multiple dose, outcomes in the first year (low risk of bias for allocation concealment), Outcome 1 Weight (kg).
[Analysis 7.2]
Analysis 7.2. Comparison 7 Target population treated - Multiple dose, outcomes in the first year (low risk of bias for allocation concealment), Outcome 2 Haemoglobin (g/dL).
[Analysis 8.1]
Analysis 8.1. Comparison 8 Target population treated - Multiple dose, outcomes after the first year (low risk of bias for allocation concealment), Outcome 1 Weight (kg).
[Analysis 8.2]
Analysis 8.2. Comparison 8 Target population treated - Multiple dose, outcomes after the first year (low risk of bias for allocation concealment), Outcome 2 Height (cm).