↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Effect of administration of antihelminthics for soil‐transmitted helminths during pregnancy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
277 Mendeley
Title
Effect of administration of antihelminthics for soil‐transmitted helminths during pregnancy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005547.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rehana A Salam, Batool A Haider, Quratulain Humayun, Zulfiqar A Bhutta

Abstract

Helminthiasis is infestation of the human body with parasitic worms and it is estimated to affect 44 million pregnancies, globally, each year. Intestinal helminthiasis (hook worm) is associated with blood loss and decreased supply of nutrients for erythropoiesis, resulting in iron-deficiency anaemia. Over 50% of the pregnant women in low- and middle-income countries suffer from iron-deficiency anaemia. Though iron-deficiency anaemia is multifactorial, hook worm infestation is a major contributory cause in women of reproductive age in endemic areas. Antihelminthics are highly efficacious in treating hook worm but evidence of their beneficial effect and safety, when given during pregnancy, has not been established. To determine the effects of administration of antihelminthics for soil-transmitted helminths during the second or third trimester of pregnancy on maternal anaemia and pregnancy outcomes. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. All prospective randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of administration of antihelminthics during the second or third trimester of pregnancy. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. A total of four trials including 4265 participants were included in this review. Two of the included trials were of high quality, while two were of relatively low quality with limitations and biases in design and conduct.Analysis showed that administration of a single dose of antihelminthic in the second trimester of pregnancy is not associated with any impact on maternal anaemia in the third trimester (risk ratio (RR) 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.10; 3266 participants; four trials; low quality evidence). Subgroup analysis on the basis of co-interventions other than antihelminthic, which included iron supplementation given to both groups was also not associated with any impact on maternal anaemia (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.23; 1290 participants; three trials; moderate quality evidence). No impact was found for the outcomes of low birthweight (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.27; 3255 participants; three trials; moderate quality evidence), preterm birth (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.78; 1318 participants; two trials, moderate quality evidence) and perinatal mortality (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.67; 3385 participants; two trials; moderate quality evidence). None of the included studies reported impact on infant survival at six months of age. The evidence to date is insufficient to recommend use of antihelminthic for pregnant women after the first trimester of pregnancy. More well-designed, large scale randomised controlled trials are needed to establish the benefit of antihelminthic treatment during pregnancy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 277 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 1%
United States 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 270 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 14%
Researcher 38 14%
Student > Bachelor 34 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 11%
Student > Postgraduate 21 8%
Other 45 16%
Unknown 68 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 82 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 41 15%
Social Sciences 20 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 3%
Other 41 15%
Unknown 73 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 November 2021.
All research outputs
#3,335,137
of 25,386,051 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,088
of 12,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,709
of 277,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#137
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,386,051 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,552 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,168 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 250 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.