Welch and colleagues’ review is a t

Welch and colleagues’ review is a thorough and
substantive replication of the Cochrane review,6,7 with
additional sophisticated analyses and adjustments that
take into account criticisms levelled by deworming
advocates at the current Cochrane edition that we
author. Since the fi rst edition8
of the Cochrane review
in 2000, advocates of deworming have ignored,
ridiculed, or attacked the various editions.1,9 For the
past 16 years we have added new studies as they have
emerged, and evidence of no eff ect has accumulated.
We have unearthed large unpublished trials of no eff ect
now included in both reviews, and the controversy
around our fi ndings has helped to drive the demand
for an independent replication10 of a single large
study11 from Kenya cited extensively by advocates as
the underpinning evidence base. The replication was
published in 2015 and uncovered “various errors”,
ultimately fi nding little evidence for previously
reported indirect eff ects of deworming, although school
attendance remained higher in the intervention group.
Indeed, the disbelief around the Cochrane fi ndings was a
major reason for the Campbell replication.

Результаты (английский) 1:

Welch and colleagues ' review is a thorough andsubstantive replication of the Cochrane review, with 6.7additional sophisticated analyses and adjustments thatto take into account criticisms levelled by-dewormingadvocates at the current Cochrane edition that weauthor. Since the fi rst edition8 of the Cochrane reviewin 2000, advocates of-deworming have ignored,ridiculed, or attacked the various editions For the 1.9.the past 16 years we have added new studies as they haveemerged, and evidence of no eff ect has accumulated.We have unearthed large unpublished trials of no eff ectnow included in both reviews, and the controversyaround our fi ndings has helped to drive the demandfor an independent replication10 of a single largestudy11 from Kenya cited extensively by advocates asthe underpinning evidence base. The replication option waspublished in 2015 and uncovered "various errors"ultimately fi nding little evidence for previouslyreported indirect eff ects of-deworming, although schoolattendance remained higher in the intervention group.Indeed, the disbelief around the Cochrane fi ndings was athe major reason for the Campbell replication.

Результаты (английский) 2:

Colleagues and the Welch 'review is a Thorough and
substantive replication of the the Cochrane review, with 6,7
Additional Sophisticated That the Analyses and adjustments
to take account criticisms Into The Levelled by deworming
Advocates AT the current edition the Cochrane That we
author. The! Rst fi Since header edition8
of the the Cochrane review
in 2000, Advocates of deworming have ignored,
ridiculed, or Attacked the Various editions.1,9 For the
the past 16 we have added years new studies as with for They have
Emerged, and Evidence of the no eff ect has accumulated.
Have unearthed large for We unpublished trials of the no eff ect
now! Just included in Both reviews The worst,
the Controversy and around Our fi ndings has Helped to the drive a demand
for an independent of the single replication10 of a large
study11 from Kenya Extensively cited by Advocates as with
the base underpinning the Evidence. WAS replication of The
Be published in 2015 uncovered and "Various errors The",
Ultimately fi nding little Evidence for Previously
Reported indirect eff ects of deworming, Although A school of
attendance Remained Higher in the Intervention group.
Indeed, the disbelief around the fi ndings the Cochrane WAS a
major reason for the replication of Campbell. WAS replication of The Be published in 2015 uncovered and "Various errors The", Ultimately fi nding little Evidence for Previously Reported indirect eff ects of deworming, Although A school of attendance Remained Higher in the Intervention group. Indeed, the disbelief around the fi ndings the Cochrane WAS a major reason for the replication of Campbell. WAS replication of The Be published in 2015 uncovered and "Various errors The", Ultimately fi nding little Evidence for Previously Reported indirect eff ects of deworming, Although A school of attendance Remained Higher in the Intervention group. Indeed, the disbelief around the fi ndings the Cochrane WAS a major reason for the replication of Campbell.