Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25951197›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Self-reported household impacts of large-scale chemical contamination of the public water supply, Charleston, West Virginia, USA.

Charles P Schade, Nasandra Wright, Rahul Gupta, David A Latif, Ayan Jha, John Robinson

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review of Modeling Methodologies for Managing Water Distribution Security.Journal of water resources planning and management · 2020
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Evaluation of 4-methylcyclohexanemethanol (MCHM) in a combined irritancy and Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) in mice.Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association · 2017
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Charles P SchadeWest Virginia Medical Institute (WVMI) & Quality Insights, Charleston, West Virginia, United States of America.
Nasandra WrightKanawha-Charleston Health Department, Charleston, West Virginia, United States of America.
Rahul GuptaKanawha-Charleston Health Department, Charleston, West Virginia, United States of America.
David A LatifDepartment of Pharmacy, University of Charleston, Charleston, West Virginia, United States of America.
Ayan JhaKanawha-Charleston Health Department, Charleston, West Virginia, United States of America.
John RobinsonKanawha-Charleston Health Department, Charleston, West Virginia, United States of America; Department of Pharmacy, University of Charleston, Charleston, West Virginia, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A January 2014 industrial accident contaminated the public water supply of approximately 300,000 homes in and near Charleston, West Virginia (USA) with low levels of a strongly-smelling substance consisting principally of 4-methylcyclohexane methanol (MCHM). The ensuing state of emergency closed schools and businesses. Hundreds of people sought medical care for symptoms they related to the incident. We surveyed 498 households by telephone to assess the episode's health and economic impact as well as public perception of risk communication by responsible officials. Thirty two percent of households (159/498) reported someone with illness believed to be related to the chemical spill, chiefly dermatological or gastrointestinal symptoms. Respondents experienced more frequent symptoms of psychological distress during and within 30 days of the emergency than 90 days later. Sixty-seven respondent households (13%) had someone miss work because of the crisis, missing a median of 3 days of work. Of 443 households reporting extra expenses due to the crisis, 46% spent less than $100, while 10% spent over $500 (estimated average about $206). More than 80% (401/485) households learned of the spill the same day it occurred. More than 2/3 of households complied fully with "do not use" orders that were issued; only 8% reported drinking water against advice. Household assessments of official communications varied by source, with local officials receiving an average "B" rating, whereas some federal and water company communication received a "D" grade. More than 90% of households obtained safe water from distribution centers or stores during the emergency. We conclude that the spill had major economic impact with substantial numbers of individuals reporting incident-related illnesses and psychological distress. Authorities were successful supplying emergency drinking water, but less so with risk communication.

Indexed as

DisastersWater QualityWater SupplyAdolescentAdultAgedCyclohexanesDrinking WaterFamily CharacteristicsFemaleHealthHumansMaleMiddle AgedSelf ReportStress, Physiological4-methylcyclohexanemethanolCyclohexanesDrinking WaterWater Pollutants, Chemical

Identifiers

PMID25951197
PMCPMC4423935

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.