Skip to main content
. 2015 Jul 23;2015(7):CD000371. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000371.pub6
Methods RCT
Length of follow‐up: 6 months
Participants All children living in endemic area (children screened for anaemia then randomized and all children treated)
Number analysed for primary outcome: 510 randomized
Mean age: ˜7.3 years
Inclusion criteria: children in Grades 1 to 3 with haemoglobin < 110 g/L but not < 70 g/L
Exclusion criteria: haemoglobin concentrations < 70 g/L
Interventions Multiple dose vs placebo
Factorial design
Mebendazole 500 mg at 0 and 3 months
  1. Iron‐fortified noodles and mebendazole 500 mg;

  2. Noodles without iron fortificant and mebendazole 500 mg;

  3. Iron‐fortified noodles and placebo;

  4. Noodles without iron fortificant and placebo; and

  5. Iron supplementation and mebendazole 500 mg.

Outcomes
  1. Haemoglobin ‐ change;

  2. Prevalence of underweight, stunting and wasting  (defined as ‐2SD for weight‐for‐height, height‐for‐age and weight‐for‐ age using WHO/NCHS reference data).


Not included in review: Ferritin; serum transferrin; worm prevalence; CRP.
Notes Location: Vietnam
Community category: 2
Source of funding: Neys‐van Hoogstraten Foundation, Ellison Medical Foundation and the Ministry of Education and Training, Vietnam.
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Randomized, no further details.
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Central allocation. "Randomization was carried out by a researcher [...] who did not know the children and could not introduce bias in the randomization".
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes Low risk Participants and key personnel blinded. "Children, teachers and researchers were blinded to the treatment".
Placebo identical to intervention drug.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk 409/425 participants were evaluated. Reason for drop‐out: refusal (n = 16, intervention: 4.7%, placebo: 2.3%). Inclusion of all randomized participants (number evaluable/number randomized): 96% (409/425).
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Pre‐specfied outcomes reported.
Other bias Low risk No obvious other sources of bias.