Birth and death notification via mobile devices: a mixed methods systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Ministries of health, donors, and other decision-makers are exploring how they can use mobile technologies to acquire accurate and timely statistics on births and deaths. These stakeholders have called for evidence-based guidance on this topic. This review was carried out to support World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations on digital interventions for health system strengthening. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective: To assess the effects of birth notification and death notification via a mobile device, compared to standard practice. Secondary objectives: To describe the range of strategies used to implement birth and death notification via mobile devices and identify factors influencing the implementation of birth and death notification via mobile devices. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the Global Health Library, and POPLINE (August 2, 2019). We searched two trial registries (August 2, 2019). We also searched Epistemonikos for related systematic reviews and potentially eligible primary studies (August 27, 2019). We conducted a grey literature search using mHealthevidence.org (August 15, 2017) and issued a call for papers through popular digital health communities of practice. Finally, we conducted citation searches of included studies in Web of Science and Google Scholar (May 15, 2020). We searched for studies published after 2000 in any language.  SELECTION CRITERIA: For the primary objective, we included individual and cluster-randomised trials; cross-over and stepped-wedge study designs; controlled before-after studies, provided they have at least two intervention sites and two control sites; and interrupted time series studies. For the secondary objectives, we included any study design, either quantitative, qualitative, or descriptive, that aimed to describe current strategies for birth and death notification via mobile devices; or to explore factors that influence the implementation of these strategies, including studies of acceptability or feasibility. For the primary objective, we included studies that compared birth and death notification via mobile devices with standard practice. For the secondary objectives, we included studies of birth and death notification via mobile device as long as we could extract data relevant to our secondary objectives. We included studies of all cadres of healthcare providers, including lay health workers; administrative, managerial, and supervisory staff; focal individuals at the village or community level; children whose births were being notified and their parents/caregivers; and individuals whose deaths were being notified and their relatives/caregivers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For the primary objective, two authors independently screened all records, extracted data from the included studies and assessed risk of bias. For the analyses of the primary objective, we reported means and proportions, where appropriate. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and we prepared a 'Summary of Findings' table. For the secondary objectives, two authors screened all records, one author extracted data from the included studies and assessed methodological limitations using the WEIRD tool and a second author checked the data and assessments. We carried out a framework analysis using the Supporting the Use of Research Evidence (SURE) framework to identify themes in the data. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in the evidence and we prepared a 'Summary of Qualitative Findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: For the primary objective, we included one study, which used a controlled before-after study design. The study was conducted in Lao People's Democratic Republic and assessed the effect of using mobile devices for birth notification on outcomes related to coverage and timeliness of Hepatitis B vaccination. However, we are uncertain of the effect of this approach on these outcomes because the certainty of this evidence was assessed as very low. The included study did not assess resource use or unintended consequences. For the primary objective, we did not identify any studies using mobile devices for death notification. For the secondary objective, we included 21 studies. All studies were conducted in low- or middle-income settings. They focussed on identification of births and deaths in rural, remote, or marginalised populations who are typically under-represented in civil registration processes or traditionally seen as having poor access to health services. The review identified several factors that could influence the implementation of birth-death notification via mobile device. These factors were tied to the health system, the person responsible for notifying, the community and families; and include: - Geographic barriers that could prevent people's access to birth-death notification and post-notification services - Access to health workers and other notifiers with enough training, supervision, support, and incentives - Monitoring systems that ensure the quality and timeliness of the birth and death data - Legal frameworks that allow births and deaths to be notified by mobile device and by different types of notifiers - Community awareness of the need to register births and deaths - Socio-cultural norms around birth and death - Government commitment - Cost to the system, to health workers and to families - Access to electricity and network connectivity, and compatibility with existing systems - Systems that protect data confidentiality We have low to moderate confidence in these findings. This was mainly because of concerns about methodological limitations and data adequacy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We need more, well-designed studies of the effect of birth and death notification via mobile devices and on factors that may influence its implementation.

Targeted client communication via mobile devices for improving maternal, neonatal, and child health.

BACKGROUND: The global burden of poor maternal, neonatal, and child health (MNCH) accounts for more than a quarter of healthy years of life lost worldwide. Targeted client communication (TCC) via mobile devices (MD) (TCCMD) may be a useful strategy to improve MNCH. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of TCC via MD on health behaviour, service use, health, and well-being for MNCH. SEARCH METHODS: In July/August 2017, we searched five databases including The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and Embase. We also searched two trial registries. A search update was carried out in July 2019 and potentially relevant studies are awaiting classification. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that assessed TCC via MD to improve MNCH behaviour, service use, health, and well-being. Eligible comparators were usual care/no intervention, non-digital TCC, and digital non-targeted client communication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane, although data extraction and risk of bias assessments were carried out by one person only and cross-checked by a second. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 trials (17,463 participants). Trial populations were: pregnant and postpartum women (11 trials conducted in low-, middle- or high-income countries (LMHIC); pregnant and postpartum women living with HIV (three trials carried out in one lower middle-income country); and parents of children under the age of five years (13 trials conducted in LMHIC). Most interventions (18) were delivered via text messages alone, one was delivered through voice calls only, and the rest were delivered through combinations of different communication channels, such as multimedia messages and voice calls. Pregnant and postpartum women TCCMD versus standard care For behaviours, TCCMD may increase exclusive breastfeeding in settings where rates of exclusive breastfeeding are less common (risk ratio (RR) 1.30, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.06 to 1.59; low-certainty evidence), but have little or no effect in settings where almost all women breastfeed (low-certainty evidence). For use of health services, TCCMD may increase antenatal appointment attendance (odds ratio (OR) 1.54, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.96; low-certainty evidence); however, the CI encompasses both benefit and harm. The intervention may increase skilled attendants at birth in settings where a lack of skilled attendants at birth is common (though this differed by urban/rural residence), but may make no difference in settings where almost all women already have a skilled attendant at birth (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.94; low-certainty evidence). There were uncertain effects on maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity because the certainty of the evidence was assessed as very low. TCCMD versus non-digital TCC (e.g. pamphlets) TCCMD may have little or no effect on exclusive breastfeeding (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.07; low-certainty evidence). TCCMD may reduce 'any maternal health problem' (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.79) and 'any newborn health problem' (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.06) reported up to 10 days postpartum (low-certainty evidence), though the CI for the latter includes benefit and harm. The effect on health service use is unknown due to a lack of studies. TCCMD versus digital non-targeted communication No studies reported behavioural, health, or well-being outcomes for this comparison. For use of health services, there are uncertain effects for the presence of a skilled attendant at birth due to very low-certainty evidence, and the intervention may make little or no difference to attendance for antenatal influenza vaccination (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.58), though the CI encompasses both benefit and harm (low-certainty evidence). Pregnant and postpartum women living with HIV TCCMD versus standard care For behaviours, TCCMD may make little or no difference to maternal and infant adherence to antiretroviral (ARV) therapy (low-certainty evidence). For health service use, TCC mobile telephone reminders may increase use of antenatal care slightly (mean difference (MD) 1.5, 95% CI -0.36 to 3.36; low-certainty evidence). The effect on the proportion of births occurring in a health facility is uncertain due to very low-certainty evidence. For health and well-being outcomes, there was an uncertain intervention effect on neonatal death or stillbirth, and infant HIV due to very low-certainty evidence. No studies reported on maternal mortality or morbidity. TCCMD versus non-digital TCC The effect is unknown due to lack of studies reporting this comparison. TCCMD versus digital non-targeted communication TCCMD may increase infant ARV/prevention of mother-to-child transmission treatment adherence (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.48; low-certainty evidence). The effect on other outcomes is unknown due to lack of studies. Parents of children aged less than five years No studies reported on correct treatment, nutritional, or health outcomes. TCCMD versus standard care Based on 10 trials, TCCMD may modestly increase health service use (vaccinations and HIV care) (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.34; low-certainty evidence); however, the effect estimates varied widely between studies. TCCMD versus non-digital TCC TCCMD may increase attendance for vaccinations (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.28; low-certainty evidence), and may make little or no difference to oral hygiene practices (low-certainty evidence). TCCMD versus digital non-targeted communication TCCMD may reduce attendance for vaccinations, but the CI encompasses both benefit and harm (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.20; low-certainty evidence). No trials in any population reported data on unintended consequences. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effect of TCCMD for most outcomes is uncertain. There may be improvements for some outcomes using targeted communication but these findings were of low certainty. High-quality, adequately powered trials and cost-effectiveness analyses are required to reliably ascertain the effects and relative benefits of TCCMD. Future studies should measure potential unintended consequences, such as partner violence or breaches of confidentiality.

Targeted client communication via mobile devices for improving sexual and reproductive health.

BACKGROUND: The burden of poor sexual and reproductive health (SRH) worldwide is substantial, disproportionately affecting those living in low- and middle-income countries. Targeted client communication (TCC) delivered via mobile devices (MD) (TCCMD) may improve the health behaviours and service use important for sexual and reproductive health. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of TCC via MD on adolescents' knowledge, and on adolescents' and adults' sexual and reproductive health behaviour, health service use, and health and well-being. SEARCH METHODS: In July/August 2017, we searched five databases including The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and Embase. We also searched two trial registries. A search update was carried out in July 2019 and potentially relevant studies are awaiting classification. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of TCC via MD to improve sexual and reproductive health behaviour, health service use, and health and well-being. Eligible comparators were standard care or no intervention, non-digital TCC, and digital non-targeted communication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane, although data extraction and risk of bias assessments were carried out by one person only and cross-checked by a second. We have presented results separately for adult and adolescent populations, and for each comparison. MAIN RESULTS: We included 40 trials (27 among adult populations and 13 among adolescent populations) with a total of 26,854 participants. All but one of the trials among adolescent populations were conducted in high-income countries. Trials among adult populations were conducted in a range of high- to low-income countries. Among adolescents, nine interventions were delivered solely through text messages; four interventions tested text messages in combination with another communication channel, such as emails, multimedia messaging, or voice calls; and one intervention used voice calls alone. Among adults, 20 interventions were delivered through text messages; two through a combination of text messages and voice calls; and the rest were delivered through other channels such as voice calls, multimedia messaging, interactive voice response, and instant messaging services. Adolescent populations TCCMD versus standard care TCCMD may increase sexual health knowledge (risk ratio (RR) 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 1.71; low-certainty evidence). TCCMD may modestly increase contraception use (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.35; low-certainty evidence). The effects on condom use, antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence, and health service use are uncertain due to very low-certainty evidence. The effects on abortion and STI rates are unknown due to lack of studies. TCCMD versus non-digital TCC (e.g. pamphlets) The effects of TCCMD on behaviour (contraception use, condom use, ART adherence), service use, health and wellbeing (abortion and STI rates) are unknown due to lack of studies for this comparison. TCCMD versus digital non-targeted communication The effects on sexual health knowledge, condom and contraceptive use are uncertain due to very low-certainty evidence. Interventions may increase health service use (attendance for STI/HIV testing, RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.40; low-certainty evidence). The intervention may be beneficial for reducing STI rates (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.33; low-certainty evidence), but the confidence interval encompasses both benefit and harm. The effects on abortion rates and on ART adherence are unknown due to lack of studies. We are uncertain whether TCCMD results in unintended consequences due to lack of evidence. Adult populations TCCMD versus standard care For health behaviours, TCCMD may modestly increase contraception use at 12 months (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.48) and may reduce repeat abortion (RR 0.68 95% CI 0.28 to 1.66), though the confidence interval encompasses benefit and harm (low-certainty evidence). The effect on condom use is uncertain. No study measured the impact of this intervention on STI rates. TCCMD may modestly increase ART adherence (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.32, low-certainty evidence, and standardised mean difference 0.44, 95% CI -0.14 to 1.02, low-certainty evidence). TCCMD may modestly increase health service utilisation (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31; low-certainty evidence), but there was substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 85%), with mixed results according to type of service utilisation (i.e. attendance for STI testing; HIV treatment; voluntary male medical circumcision (VMMC); VMMC post-operative visit; post-abortion care). For health and well-being outcomes, there may be little or no effect on CD4 count (mean difference 13.99, 95% CI -8.65 to 36.63; low-certainty evidence) and a slight reduction in virological failure (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.01; low-certainty evidence). TCCMD versus non-digital TCC No studies reported STI rates, condom use, ART adherence, abortion rates, or contraceptive use as outcomes for this comparison. TCCMD may modestly increase in service attendance overall (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.92-1.35, low certainty evidence), however the confidence interval encompasses benefit and harm. TCCMD versus digital non-targeted communication No studies reported STI rates, condom use, ART adherence, abortion rates, or contraceptive use as outcomes for this comparison. TCCMD may increase service utilisation overall (RR: 1.71, 95% CI 0.67-4.38, low certainty evidence), however the confidence interval encompasses benefit and harm and there was considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 72%), with mixed results according to type of service utilisation (STI/HIV testing, and VMMC). Few studies reported on unintended consequences. One study reported that a participant withdrew from the intervention as they felt it compromised their undisclosed HIV status. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: TCCMD may improve some outcomes but the evidence is of low certainty. The effect on most outcomes is uncertain/unknown due to very low certainty evidence or lack of evidence. High quality, adequately powered trials and cost effectiveness analyses are required to reliably ascertain the effects and relative benefits of TCC delivered by mobile devices. Given the sensitivity and stigma associated with sexual and reproductive health future studies should measure unintended consequences, such as partner violence or breaches of confidentiality.

A rapid research needs appraisal methodology to identify evidence gaps to inform clinical research priorities in response to outbreaks-results from the Lassa fever pilot.

BACKGROUND: Infectious disease epidemics are a constant threat, and while we can strengthen preparedness in advance, inevitably, we will sometimes be caught unaware by novel outbreaks. To address the challenge of rapidly identifying clinical research priorities in those circumstances, we developed and piloted a protocol for carrying out a systematic, rapid research needs appraisal (RRNA) of existing evidence within 5 days in response to outbreaks globally, with the aim to inform clinical research prioritization. METHODS: The protocol was derived from rapid review methodologies and optimized through effective use of pre-defined templates and global time zones. It was piloted using a Lassa fever (LF) outbreak scenario. Databases were searched from 1969 to July 2017. Systematic reviewers based in Canada, the UK, and the Philippines screened and extracted data using a systematic review software. The pilot was evaluated through internal analysis and by comparing the research priorities identified from the data, with those identified by an external LF expert panel. RESULTS: The RRNA pilot was completed within 5 days. To accommodate the high number of articles identified, data extraction was prioritized by study design and year, and the clinical research prioritization done post-day 5. Of 118 potentially eligible articles, 52 met the data extraction criteria, of which 46 were extracted within the 5-day time frame. The RRNA team identified 19 clinical research priorities; the expert panel independently identified 21, of which 11 priorities overlapped. Each method identified a unique set of priorities, showing that combining both methods for clinical research prioritization is more robust than using either method alone. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study shows that it is feasible to carry out a systematic RRNA within 5 days in response to a (re-) emerging outbreak to identify gaps in existing evidence, as long as sufficient resources are identified, and reviewers are experienced and trained in advance. Use of an online systematic review software and global time zones effectively optimized resources. Another 3 to 5 days are recommended for review of the extracted data and to formulate clinical research priorities. The RRNA can be used for a "Disease X" scenario and should optimally be combined with an expert panel to ensure breadth and depth of coverage of clinical research priorities.

Deworming drugs for soil-transmitted intestinal worms in children: effects on nutritional indicators, haemoglobin and school performance.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends treating all school children at regular intervals with deworming drugs in areas where helminth infection is common. The WHO state this will improve nutritional status, haemoglobin, and cognition and thus will improve health, intellect, and school attendance. Consequently, it is claimed that school performance will improve, child mortality will decline, and economic productivity will increase. Given the important health and societal benefits attributed to this intervention, we sought to determine whether they are based on reliable evidence. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the effects of giving deworming drugs to children to treat soil-transmitted intestinal worms (nematode geohelminths) on weight, haemoglobin, and cognition; and the evidence of impact on physical well being, school attendance, school performance, and mortality. SEARCH METHODS: In February 2012, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, mRCT, and reference lists, and registers of ongoing and completed trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing deworming drugs for geohelminth worms with placebo or no treatment in children aged 16 years or less, reporting on weight, haemoglobin, and formal test of intellectual development. In cluster-RCTs treating communities or schools, we also sought data on school attendance, school performance, and mortality. We included trials that included health education with deworming. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two authors independently assessed the trials, evaluated risk of bias, and extracted data. Continuous data were analysed using the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where data were missing, we contacted trial authors. We used GRADE to assess evidence quality, and this is reflected in the wording we used: high quality ("deworming improves...."); moderate quality ("deworming probably improves..."); low quality ("deworming may improve...."); and very low quality ("we don't know if deworming improves...."). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 42 trials, including eight cluster trials, that met the inclusion criteria. Excluding one trial where data are awaited, the 41 trials include 65,168 participants.Screening then treatingFor children known to be infected with worms (by screening), a single dose of deworming drugs may increase weight (0.58 kg, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.76, three trials, 139 participants; low quality evidence) and may increase haemoglobin (0.37 g/dL, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.64, two trials, 108 participants; low quality evidence), but we do not know if there is an effect on cognitive functioning (two trials, very low quality evidence).Single dose deworming for all childrenIn trials treating all children, a single dose of deworming drugs gave mixed effects on weight, with no effects evident in seven trials, but large effects in two (nine trials, 3058 participants, very low quality evidence). The two trials with a positive effect were from the same very high prevalence setting and may not be easily generalised elsewhere. Single dose deworming probably made little or no effect on haemoglobin (mean difference (MD) 0.06 g/dL, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.17, three trials, 1005 participants; moderate evidence), and may have little or no effect on cognition (two trials, low quality evidence).Mulitple dose deworming for all childrenOver the first year of follow up, multiple doses of deworming drugs given to all children may have little or no effect on weight (MD 0.06 kg, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.30; seven trials, 2460 participants; low quality evidence); haemoglobin, (mean 0.01 g/dL lower; 95% CI 0.14 lower to 0.13 higher; four trials, 807 participants; low quality evidence); cognition (three trials, 30,571 participants, low quality evidence); or school attendance (4% higher attendance; 95% CI -6 to 14; two trials, 30,243 participants; low quality evidence);For time periods beyond a year, there were five trials with weight measures. One cluster-RCT of 3712 children in a low prevalence area showed a large effect (average gain of 0.98 kg), whilst the other four trials did not show an effect, including a cluster-RCT of 27,995 children in a moderate prevalence area (five trials, 37,306 participants; low quality evidence). For height, we are uncertain whether there is an effect of deworming (-0.26 cm; 95% CI -0.84 to 0.31, three trials, 6652 participants; very low quality evidence). Deworming may have little or no effect on haemoglobin (0.00 g/dL, 95%CI -0.08 to 0.08, two trials, 1365 participants, low quality evidence); cognition (two trials, 3720 participants; moderate quality evidence). For school attendance, we are uncertain if there is an effect (mean attendance 5% higher, 95% CI -0.5 to 10.5, approximately 20,000 participants, very low quality evidence).Stratified analysis to seek subgroup effects into low, medium and high helminth endemicity areas did not demonstrate any pattern of effect. In a sensitivity analysis that only included trials with adequate allocation concealment, we detected no significant effects for any primary outcomes.One million children were randomized in a deworming trial from India with mortality as the primary outcome. This was completed in 2005 but the authors have not published the results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Screening children for intestinal helminths and then treating infected children appears promising, but the evidence base is small. Routine deworming drugs given to school children has been more extensively investigated, and has not shown benefit on weight in most studies, except for substantial weight changes in three trials conducted 15 years ago or more. Two of these trials were carried out in the same high prevalence setting. For haemoglobin and cognition, community deworming seems to have little or no effect, and the evidence in relation to school attendance, and school performance is generally poor, with no obvious or consistent effect. Our interpretation of this data is that it is probably misleading to justify contemporary deworming programmes based on evidence of consistent benefit on nutrition, haemoglobin, school attendance or school performance as there is simply insufficient reliable information to know whether this is so.

Deworming drugs for soil-transmitted intestinal worms in children: effects on nutritional indicators, haemoglobin and school performance.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends treating all school children at regular intervals with deworming drugs in areas where helminth infection is common. The WHO state this will improve nutritional status, haemoglobin, and cognition and thus will improve health, intellect, and school attendance. Consequently, it is claimed that school performance will improve, child mortality will decline, and economic productivity will increase. Given the important health and societal benefits attributed to this intervention, we sought to determine whether they are based on reliable evidence. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the effects of giving deworming drugs to children to treat soil-transmitted intestinal worms (nematode geohelminths) on weight, haemoglobin, and cognition; and the evidence of impact on physical well being, school attendance, school performance, and mortality. SEARCH METHODS: In February 2012, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, mRCT, and reference lists, and registers of ongoing and completed trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing deworming drugs for geohelminth worms with placebo or no treatment in children aged 16 years or less, reporting on weight, haemoglobin, and formal test of intellectual development. In cluster-RCTs treating communities or schools, we also sought data on school attendance, school performance, and mortality. We included trials that included health education with deworming. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two authors independently assessed the trials, evaluated risk of bias, and extracted data. Continuous data were analysed using the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where data were missing, we contacted trial authors. We used GRADE to assess evidence quality, and this is reflected in the wording we used: high quality ("deworming improves...."); moderate quality ("deworming probably improves..."); low quality ("deworming may improve...."); and very low quality ("we don't know if deworming improves...."). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 42 trials, including eight cluster trials, that met the inclusion criteria. Excluding one trial where data are awaited, the 41 trials include 65,168 participants.For programmes that treat only children detected as infected (by screening), a single dose of deworming drugs probably increased weight (0.58 kg, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.76, three trials, 139 participants; moderate quality evidence) and may have increased haemoglobin (0.37 g/dL, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.64, two trials, 108 participants; low quality evidence), but we do not know if there is an effect on cognitive functioning (two trials, very low quality evidence).For a single dose of deworming drugs given to all children in endemic areas, there were mixed effects on weight, with no effects evident in seven trials, but large effects in two. Overall our analysis indicated that we are uncertain whether there was an effect on weight (nine trials, 3058 participants; very low quality evidence). For haemoglobin, deworming made little or no difference (0.02 g/dL, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.09, four trials, 1992 participants; low quality evidence), and we don't know if it improves cognition (one trial, very low quality evidence).For multiple doses of deworming drugs with follow up for up to one year given to all children in endemic areas, we are uncertain if there is an effect on weight (0.06 kg, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.30; seven trials, 2460 participants; very low quality evidence); cognition (three trials, very low quality evidence); or school attendance (4% higher attendance; 95% CI -6 to 14; two trials, 75 clusters and 143 individually randomized participants, very low quality evidence). For haemoglobin, the intervention may have little or no effect (mean 0.01 g/dL lower; 95% CI 0.14 lower to 0.13 higher; four trials, 807 participants; low quality evidence).For multiple doses of deworming drugs with follow up beyond one year given to all children in endemic areas there were five trials with weight measures. One cluster-RCT of 3712 children in a low prevalence area showed a large effect (average gain of 0.98kg), whilst the other four trials did not show an effect, including a cluster-RCT of 27,995 children in a moderate prevalence area. Overall, we are uncertain if there is an effect for weight (five trials, 302 clusters and 1045 individually randomized participants; very low quality evidence). For other outcomes, we are uncertain whether deworming affects height (-0.26 cm; 95%CI -0.84 to 0.31, three trials, 1219 participants); haemoglobin (0.02 g/dL, 95%CI 0.3 to 0.27, two trials, 1365 participants); cognition (two trials), or school attendance (mean attendance 5% higher, 95% CI -0.5 to 10.5, one trial, 50 clusters).Stratified analysis to seek subgroup effects into low, medium and high helminth endemicity areas did not demonstrate any pattern of effect. We did not detect any significant effects for any primary outcomes in a sensitivity analysis only including trials with adequate allocation concealment.One million children were randomized in a deworming trial from India with mortality as the primary outcome. This was completed in 2005 but the authors have not published the results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Screening children for intestinal helminths and then treating infected children appears promising, but the evidence base is small. Routine deworming drugs given to school children has been more extensively investigated, and has not shown benefit on weight in most studies, except for substantial weight changes in three trials conducted 15 years ago or more. Two of these trials were carried out in the same high prevalence setting. For haemoglobin, community deworming seems to have little or no effect, and the evidence in relation to cognition, school attendance, and school performance is generally poor, with no obvious or consistent effect. Our interpretation of this data is that it is probably misleading to justify contemporary deworming programmes based on evidence of consistent benefit on nutrition, haemoglobin, school attendance or school performance as there is simply insufficient reliable information to know whether this is so.