Adegnika 2014.

Methods	Design: parallel group randomized trial Duration of study: August 2010 to June 2011 Duration of follow‐up: 42 days
Participants	Country: Gabon Setting: school Number included in study: 175 children Age: 4–14 years (mean 8.7 years) Sex: not reported Inclusion criteria: aged 4–14 years and ≥ 5 eggs or larvae of A lumbricoides,T trichiura, or hookworm Exclusion criteria: known HIV infection, allergy to albendazole, severe anaemia, and any other underlying severe physical condition Lost to follow‐up: 0 (0%) Number positive for A lumbricoides: 108 Number included in review: 108
Interventions	Treatment strategy: screening and treat all included participants Group 1: albendazole 400 mg single dose (n = 39) Group 2: albendazole 400 mg single dose 2 consecutive days (n = 32) Group 3: albendazole 400 mg single dose 3 consecutive days (n = 37)
Outcomes	Outcomes included:Ascaris prevalence pre‐ and post‐treatment, cure rate, pre‐ and post‐treatment AM epg, ERR rate, and adverse events Outcomes not included in review: efficacy of anthelmintic treatment for Trichuris, hookworm, and mean haemoglobin
Notes	Diagnostic technique: Kato‐Katz Funding support: EDCTP Senior Fellowship TA 11 40200025, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft‐funded project Deutsch‐Afrikanische Kooperationsprojekte in der Infektiologie (DFG‐Projekt KR 1150/6‐1), and EU‐funded project Immunological Interplay between Poverty Related Diseases and Helminth Infections: An African‐European Research Initiative (IDEA) (HEALTH‐F3‐2009‐241642). "Targeted Development of a New Generation Vaccine for Schistosomiasis" ("TheSchistoVac") (Health‐2009‐242107)
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "The randomizations code was generated with the use of R statistical software by an investigator not involved in patient study procedures."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "The code was kept concealed on a password‐protected personal computer inaccessible to study staff. The treatment group assignments were communicated to the study staff after study numbers were given to the eligible subjects and shortly before the beginning of treatment."
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Different treatment schedule.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	2 laboratory technicians independently read slides and were blinded to assigned drug regimen.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All randomized participants were included in analysis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All stated outcomes reported.
Other bias	Low risk	No other obvious source of bias.