Mass deworming for improving health and cognition of children in endemic helminth areas: A systematic review and individual participant data network meta‐analysis

BackgroundSoil transmitted (or intestinal) helminths and schistosomes affect millions of children worldwide.ObjectivesTo use individual participant data network meta‐analysis (NMA) to explore the effects of different types and frequency of deworming drugs on anaemia, cognition and growth across potential effect modifiers.Search MethodsWe developed a search strategy with an information scientist to search MEDLINE, CINAHL, LILACS, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Econlit, Internet Documents in Economics Access Service (IDEAS), Public Affairs Information Service (PAIS), Social Services Abstracts, Global Health CABI and CAB Abstracts up to March 27, 2018. We also searched grey literature, websites, contacted authors and screened references of relevant systematic reviews.Selection CriteriaWe included randomised and quasirandomised deworming trials in children for deworming compared to placebo or other interventions with data on baseline infection.Data Collection and AnalysisWe conducted NMA with individual participant data (IPD), using a frequentist approach for random‐effects NMA. The covariates were: age, sex, weight, height, haemoglobin and infection intensity. The effect estimate chosen was the mean difference for the continuous outcome of interest.ResultsWe received data from 19 randomized controlled trials with 31,945 participants. Overall risk of bias was low. There were no statistically significant subgroup effects across any of the potential effect modifiers. However, analyses showed that there may be greater effects on weight for moderate to heavily infected children (very low certainty evidence).Authors' ConclusionsThis analysis reinforces the case against mass deworming at a population‐level, finding little effect on nutritional status or cognition. However, children with heavier intensity infections may benefit more. We urge the global community to adopt calls to make data available in open repositories to facilitate IPD analyses such as this, which aim to assess effects for the most vulnerable individuals.</div

Reporting of equity in observational epidemiology: a methodological review

Background: Observational studies can inform how we understand and address persisting health inequities through the collection, reporting and analysis of health equity factors. However, the extent to which the analysis and reporting of equity-relevant aspects in observational research are generally unknown. Thus, we aimed to systematically evaluate how equity-relevant observational studies reported equity considerations in the study design and analyses. Methods: We searched MEDLINE for health equity-relevant observational studies from January 2020 to March 2022, resulting in 16 828 articles. We randomly selected 320 studies, ensuring a balance in focus on populations experiencing inequities, country income settings, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) topic. We extracted information on study design and analysis methods. Results: The bulk of the studies were conducted in North America (n = 95, 30%), followed by Europe and Central Asia (n = 55, 17%). Half of the studies (n = 171, 53%) addressed general health and well-being, while 49 (15%) focused on mental health conditions. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 220, 69%) were cross-sectional. Eight (3%) engaged with populations experiencing inequities, while 22 (29%) adapted recruitment methods to reach these populations. Further, 67 studies (21%) examined interaction effects primarily related to race or ethnicity (48%). Two-thirds of the studies (72%) adjusted for characteristics associated with inequities, and 18 studies (6%) used flow diagrams to depict how populations experiencing inequities progressed throughout the studies. Conclusions: Despite over 80% of the equity-focused observational studies providing a rationale for a focus on health equity, reporting of study design features relevant to health equity ranged from 0-95%, with over half of the items reported by less than one-quarter of studies. This methodological study is a baseline assessment to inform the development of an equity-focussed reporting guideline for observational studies as an extension of the well-known Strengthening Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline.</p