Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24743336›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2014

Shared sanitation versus individual household latrines: a systematic review of health outcomes.

Marieke Heijnen, Oliver Cumming, Rachel Peletz, Gabrielle Ka-Seen Chan, Joe Brown, Kelly Baker, Thomas Clasen

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudySystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
10.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

72 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 163 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Does Basic Sanitation Prevent Diarrhea? Contextualizing Recent Intervention Trials through a Historical Lens.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Marieke HeijnenFaculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Oliver CummingFaculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Rachel PeletzFaculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Gabrielle Ka-Seen ChanFaculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Joe BrownSchool of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Kelly BakerDepartment of Environmental Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Thomas ClasenFaculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom; Department of Environmental Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBEmory University · USGeorgia Institute of Technology · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMore than 761 million people rely on shared sanitation facilities. These have historically been excluded from international sanitation targets, regardless of the service level, due to concerns about acceptability, hygiene and access. In connection with a proposed change in such policy, we undertook this review to identify and summarize existing evidence that compares health outcomes associated with shared sanitation versus individual household latrines. METHODS AND

findingsShared sanitation included any type of facilities intended for the containment of human faeces and used by more than one household, but excluded public facilities. Health outcomes included diarrhoea, helminth infections, enteric fevers, other faecal-oral diseases, trachoma and adverse maternal or birth outcomes. Studies were included regardless of design, location, language or publication status. Studies were assessed for methodological quality using the STROBE guidelines. Twenty-two studies conducted in 21 countries met the inclusion criteria. Studies show a pattern of increased risk of adverse health outcomes associated with shared sanitation compared to individual household latrines. A meta-analysis of 12 studies reporting on diarrhoea found increased odds of disease associated with reliance on shared sanitation (odds ratio (OR) 1.44, 95% CI: 1.18-1.76).

conclusionEvidence to date does not support a change of existing policy of excluding shared sanitation from the definition of improved sanitation used in international monitoring and targets. However, such evidence is limited, does not adequately address likely confounding, and does not identify potentially important distinctions among types of shared facilities. As reliance on shared sanitation is increasing, further research is necessary to determine the circumstances, if any, under which shared sanitation can offer a safe, appropriate and acceptable alternative to individual household latrines.

Indexed as

Health StatusHousingToilet FacilitiesHumansSanitation

Identifiers

PMID24743336
PMCPMC3990518
OpenAlexW2021337515

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.