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)