Skip to main content
. 2015 Jul 23;2015(7):CD000371. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000371.pub6

Watkins 1996

Methods RCT
Length of follow‐up: 6 months
Participants All children living in endemic area
Number analysed for primary outcome: 226 for nutritional outcomes, reduced for cognitive outcomes
Age range: 7 to 12 years
Inclusion criteria: children attending grades 1 to 4 in primary schools in the Guatemalan highlands
Exclusion criteria: > 12 years; deworming medicine in last year
Interventions Multiple doses vs placebo

  1. Albendazole: 2 x 200 mg at baseline and 12 weeks;

  2. Placebo: identical at baseline and 12 weeks.
Outcomes

  1. Mean weight post‐treatment;

  2. Mean change in weight post‐treatment;

  3. Mean height post‐treatment;

  4. Mean change in height post‐treatment;

  5. School performance: attendance rates of children actively attending school measured using attendance books, dropout rates;

  6. Mean MUAC;

  7. Mean change in MUAC;

  8. Cognitive tests: Interamerican vocabulary test, Interamerican reading test, Peabody picture vocabulary test.


Not included in review: egg counts (Kato‐Katz: arithmetic and geometric mean); z‐scores (NCHS‐CDC‐WHO reference) for weight‐for‐age, change in weight‐for‐age, height, change in height, height‐for‐age, change in height‐for‐age, weight‐for‐height, and change in height‐for‐age.
Notes Location: Guatemala
Community category: 1
Source of funding: Pew Charitable Trusts, the US Agency for International Development University Development and Linkage Program, the Children’s Miracle Network Telethon, and the ARCS Foundation.
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk "stratified by gender and age and then randomly assigned".
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk No details reported.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes Low risk "The children and field workers were unaware of treatment group assignment".
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk 90% (226/250) of randomized participants were evaluated. “No differences were detected in treatment group assignment, initial age, anthropometry, SES, and worm status between the 228 children who remained in the trial and the 18 who dropped out.” Sample size for nutritional data is smaller due to missing data. Inclusion of all randomized participants (number evaluable/number randomized): 90% (226/250).
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Pre‐specified outcomes reported.
Other bias Low risk No other obvious source of bias.