Two billion people are infected with intestinal worms [1]. In many areas, the majority of schoolchildren are infected, and the World Health Organization (WHO) has called for school-based mass deworming. The key area for debate is not whether deworming medicine works—in fact, the medical literature finds that treatment is highly effective [2], and thus the standard of care calls for treating any patient known to harbor an infection. As the authors of the Cochrane systematic review point out, a critical issue in evaluating current soil-transmitted helminth policies is whether the benefits of deworming exceed the costs or whether it would be more prudent to use the money for other purposes [3]. While in general we think the Cochrane approach is very valuable, we argue below that many of the underlying studies of deworming suffer from three critical methodological problems: treatment externalities in dynamic infection systems, inadequate measurement of cognitive outcomes and school attendance, and sample attrition. We then argue that the currently available evidence from studies that address these issues is consistent with the consensus view expressed by other reviews and by policymakers that deworming is a very costeffective way to increase school participation and has a high benefit to cost ratio.
BT - PLoS neglected tropical diseases C1 -http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19172186?dopt=Abstract
DO - 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000362 IS - 1 J2 - PLoS Negl Trop Dis LA - eng N2 -Two billion people are infected with intestinal worms [1]. In many areas, the majority of schoolchildren are infected, and the World Health Organization (WHO) has called for school-based mass deworming. The key area for debate is not whether deworming medicine works—in fact, the medical literature finds that treatment is highly effective [2], and thus the standard of care calls for treating any patient known to harbor an infection. As the authors of the Cochrane systematic review point out, a critical issue in evaluating current soil-transmitted helminth policies is whether the benefits of deworming exceed the costs or whether it would be more prudent to use the money for other purposes [3]. While in general we think the Cochrane approach is very valuable, we argue below that many of the underlying studies of deworming suffer from three critical methodological problems: treatment externalities in dynamic infection systems, inadequate measurement of cognitive outcomes and school attendance, and sample attrition. We then argue that the currently available evidence from studies that address these issues is consistent with the consensus view expressed by other reviews and by policymakers that deworming is a very costeffective way to increase school participation and has a high benefit to cost ratio.
PY - 2009 EP - e362 T2 - PLoS neglected tropical diseases TI - Deworming and development: asking the right questions, asking the questions right. UR - http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article/asset?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pntd.0000362.PDF VL - 3 SN - 1935-2735 ER -