Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24800926›Full record

SynthesisPLoS medicine2014

Fecal contamination of drinking-water in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Robert Bain, Ryan Cronk, Jim Wright, Hong Yang, Tom Slaymaker, Jamie Bartram

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 186 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
186citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

186 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Indicators for Monitoring Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene: A Systematic Review of Indicator Selection Methods.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2016
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Interventions to improve water quality for preventing diarrhoea.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article

126 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

6 authors.

Robert BainThe Water Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
Ryan CronkThe Water Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
Jim WrightUniversity of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Hong YangUniversity of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Tom SlaymakerWaterAid UK, London, United Kingdom.
Jamie BartramThe Water Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccess to safe drinking-water is a fundamental requirement for good health and is also a human right. Global access to safe drinking-water is monitored by WHO and UNICEF using as an indicator "use of an improved source," which does not account for water quality measurements. Our objectives were to determine whether water from "improved" sources is less likely to contain fecal contamination than "unimproved" sources and to assess the extent to which contamination varies by source type and setting. METHODS AND

findingsStudies in Chinese, English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish were identified from online databases, including PubMed and Web of Science, and grey literature. Studies in low- and middle-income countries published between 1990 and August 2013 that assessed drinking-water for the presence of Escherichia coli or thermotolerant coliforms (TTC) were included provided they associated results with a particular source type. In total 319 studies were included, reporting on 96,737 water samples. The odds of contamination within a given study were considerably lower for "improved" sources than "unimproved" sources (odds ratio [OR] = 0.15 [0.10-0.21], I2 = 80.3% [72.9-85.6]). However over a quarter of samples from improved sources contained fecal contamination in 38% of 191 studies. Water sources in low-income countries (OR = 2.37 [1.52-3.71]; p<0.001) and rural areas (OR = 2.37 [1.47-3.81] p<0.001) were more likely to be contaminated. Studies rarely reported stored water quality or sanitary risks and few achieved robust random selection. Safety may be overestimated due to infrequent water sampling and deterioration in quality prior to consumption.

conclusionAccess to an "improved source" provides a measure of sanitary protection but does not ensure water is free of fecal contamination nor is it consistent between source types or settings. International estimates therefore greatly overstate use of safe drinking-water and do not fully reflect disparities in access. An enhanced monitoring strategy would combine indicators of sanitary protection with measures of water quality.

Indexed as

IncomeWater MicrobiologyDeveloping CountriesDrinking WaterEnvironmental MonitoringFecesGeographyHumansPublication BiasRegression AnalysisDrinking Water

Identifiers

PMID24800926
PMCPMC4011876

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.