Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of findings

From: Deworming in non-pregnant adolescent girls and adult women: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Patient or population: non-pregnant women aged 10–66
Setting: STH endemic areas
Intervention: deworming
Comparison: no intervention/placebo
Outcomes Anticipated absolute effectsa (95% CI) Relative effect (95% CI) № of participants (studies) Quality of the evidence (GRADE) Comments
Risk with control Risk with deworming
Anaemia prevalence assessed with haemoglobin levels < 120 g/L
Follow up: mean 6 months
398 per 1000 327 per 1000 (239 to 442) RR 0.82 (0.60 to 1.11) 683 (3)
Lowb,c
 
Iron deficiency prevalence assessed with ferritin levels < 12 μg/L
Follow up: mean 6 months
464 per 1000 413 per 1000 (297 to 571) RR 0.89 (0.64 to 1.23) 186 (1)
Lowb,c
 
Severe anaemia    RR 6.25 (0.34 to 115.15) 51 (1)
Very lowb,d
 
Parasite load—Ascaris assessed with: prevalence follow up: 6 months 327 per 1000 95 per 1000 (46 to 202) RR 0.29 (0.14 to 0.62) 1498 (2)
Moderateb
 
Parasite load—Hookworm assessed with: prevalence follow up: 6 months 331 per 1000 106 per 1000 (60 to 195) RR 0.32 (0.18 to 0.59) 1498 (2)
Moderateb
 
Parasite load – Trichuris assessed with: prevalence follow up: 6 months 277 per 1000 213 per 1000
(180 to 252)
RR 0.77
(0.65 to 0.91)
1498
(2)

Moderateb
 
Diarrhoea No data reported   Not estimable (0 studies)  
Adverse outcomes No data reported   Not estimable (0 studies)  
  1. CI confidence interval, MD mean difference, RR risk ratio
  2. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
  3. High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
  4. Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
  5. Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
  6. Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect
  7. aThe risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI)
  8. bRated down for study limitations due to unclear risk of bias across all studies due to lack of blinding of participants, personnel, outcome assessors
  9. cAlthough optimal information size is met, confidence intervals include the null effect as well as appreciable benefit thus rated down for imprecision
  10. dDowngraded two levels for very serious imprecision, optimal information size is not met, sample size is 51 participants and only 1 event (< 300)