Skip to main content
. 2014 Oct 10;2014(10):CD000169. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000169.pub3

Summary of findings 7. Summary of findings table 7.

Intermittent preventive treatment with SP for pregnant women (parity 0‐1) living in malaria endemic areas: maternal outcomes
Patient or population: Pregnant women (parity 0‐1)
 Settings: Malaria‐endemic areas
 Intervention: Intermittent preventive treatment with SP (2 doses, 3 doses, or monthly dosing)
 Control: Placebo or no intervention
Outcomes Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) Relative effect
 (95% CI) No of participants
 (trials) Quality of the evidence
 (GRADE)
Assumed risk Corresponding risk
Control IPT (SP)
Mortality 
 All‐cause death 7 per 1000 8 per 1000 
 (3 to 20) RR 1.15 
 (0.44 to 3.06) 2097
 (2 trials) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
 very low1,2
Severe anaemia 
 During the third trimester 145 per 1000 87 per 1000 
 (68 to 108) RR 0.60 
 (0.47 to 0.75) 2503
 (3 trials) ⊕⊕⊕⊕
 high3,4,5,6
Anaemia 617 per 1000 543 per 1000 
 (480 to 604) RR 0.88 
 (0.81 to 0.96) 3291
 (4 trials) ⊕⊕⊕⊝
 moderate1,6,7,8
Uncomplicated clinical malaria 9 per 100 2 per 100 
 (0 to 10) RR 0.24 
 (0.05 to 1.12) 174
 (1 trial) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
 very low9,10,11
Antenatal parasitaemia 286 per 1000 108 per 1000 
 (69 to 169) RR 0.38 
 (0.24 to 0.59) 2832
 (4 trials) ⊕⊕⊕⊕
 high3,6,7,12
Severe adverse effects13
(0 trials)
*The basis for the assumed risk (eg the median control group risk across trials) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
 CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
 High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
 Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
 Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
 Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 Downgraded by 1 for risk of bias: Only one of these trials adequately described allocation concealment to be considered at low risk of selection bias.
 2 Downgraded by 2 for imprecision: These trials were not adequately powered to detect a difference in mortality. Only 15 deaths occurred in these two trials. To confidently detect a 50% reduction in maternal mortality in a setting of 350 deaths/100,000 would require a sample size of over 100,000.
 3 No serious risk of bias: Exclusion of the trials at high risk of bias did not change the statistical significance or clinical importance of the result.
 4 No serious inconsistency: This finding was consistent across all trials and statistical heterogeneity was low.
 5 No serious indirectness: These trials were conducted in Kenya and Mozambique between 1996 and 2005, all three trials administered IPT with SP. The definition of severe anaemia was variable; Hb < 8 g/dL, Hb < 7g/dL, or PCV < 21%.
 6 No serious imprecision: This result is statistically significant and the meta‐analysis is adequately powered to detect this effect.
 7 No serious inconsistency: Although statistical heterogeneity was high, all trials favoured IPT with SP but there was variability in the size of the effect.
 8 No serious indirectness: These trials were conducted Kenya between 1996 and 1999. The definition of anaemia was variable; Hb < 11 g/dL, Hb < 10 g/dL.
 9 Downgraded by 1 for risk of bias: This trial is at unclear risk of selection bias.
 10 Downgraded by 1 for indirectness: This trial from Mozambique 2002, measured fever history only as proxy for malaria illness.
 11 Downgraded by 1 for serious imprecision: The 95% CI is wide and includes clinically important benefits and no effect.
 12 No serious indirectness: These trials were conducted in the Kenya and Mozambique between 1996 and 2005.
 13Reporting of adverse events was generally poor. No severe adverse events were reported.