Skip to main content
. 2020 Apr 14;2020(4):CD010599. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010599.pub2

Ortiz 2002.

Methods Design: parallel group randomized trial
Duration of study: 2000
Follow‐up: 21–30 days
Participants Country: Peru
Setting: not reported
Age: 4–11 years (mean 7.9 years)
Sex: not reported
Number included in study: 210
Inclusion criteria: aged 2–11 years with eggs of A lumbricoides,T trichiura,or Hymenolepis nana in a faecal sample
Exclusion criteria: not reported
Lost at follow‐up: 22 (10.5%)
Number positive for A lumbricoides: 70
Number included in review: 63
Interventions Treatment strategy: screening and treat the positive
  • Group 1: nitazoxanide 100 mg/5 mL (2–3 years of age), 200 mg/10 mL (4–11 years of age) in the morning and evening for 3 consecutive days with food (n = 28)

  • Group 2: albendazole single 10 mL dose of 200 mg/5 mL suspension (n = 35)

  • Group 3: praziquantel 25 mg/kg/dose, 600 mg tablets (not included)

Outcomes Outcomes included:Ascaris prevalence pre‐ and post‐treatment, cure rates, pre‐ and post‐treatment GM epg, ERR, adverse events
Outcomes not included in review: anthelmintic efficacy for Trichuris and Hymenolepis; efficacy of praziquantel for A lumbricoides
Notes Diagnostic technique: Kato‐Katz
Funding support: Romark Laboratories (Tampa, Florida, USA) provided the nitazoxanide suspension and gave financial support.
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Quote: "the children were randomized to treatment with either nitazoxanide suspension or the comparator drug."
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Details not reported.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Different treatment schedule.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Details not reported.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes High risk 22 (10.5%) participants lost at follow‐up, dropouts not balanced among groups and not included in analysis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All stated outcome were reported.
Other bias Unclear risk Financial support by Romark laboratories.