Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26398228›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

Evidence on the Effectiveness of Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) Interventions on Health Outcomes in Humanitarian Crises: A Systematic Review.

Anita Ramesh, Karl Blanchet, Jeroen H J Ensink, Bayard Roberts

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 136 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Association between morning symptoms and physical activity in COPD: a systematic review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2017
    Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. AssessingScience advances · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anita RameshDepartment of Clinical Research, Faculty of Infectious Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Karl BlanchetDepartment of Clinical Research, Faculty of Infectious Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Jeroen H J EnsinkDepartment of Disease Control, Faculty of Infectious Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Bayard RobertsDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBFaculty of Public Health · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWater, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions are amongst the most crucial in humanitarian crises, although the impact of the different WASH interventions on health outcomes remains unclear.

aimTo examine the quantity and quality of evidence on WASH interventions on health outcomes in humanitarian crises, as well as evaluate current evidence on their effectiveness against health outcomes in these contexts.

methodsA systematic literature review was conducted of primary and grey quantitative literature on WASH interventions measured against health outcomes in humanitarian crises occurring from 1980-2014. Populations of interest were those in resident in humanitarian settings, with a focus on acute crisis and early recovery stages of humanitarian crises in low and middle-income countries. Interventions of interest were WASH-related, while outcomes of interest were health-related. Study quality was assessed via STROBE/CONSORT criteria. Results were analyzed descriptively, and PRISMA reporting was followed.

resultsOf 3963 studies initially retrieved, only 6 published studies measured a statistically significant change in health outcome as a result of a WASH intervention. All 6 studies employed point-of-use (POU) water quality interventions, with 50% using safe water storage (SWS) and 35% using household water treatment (HWT). All 6 studies used self-reported diarrhea outcomes, 2 studies also reported laboratory confirmed outcomes, and 2 studies reported health treatment outcomes (e.g. clinical admissions). 1 study measured WASH intervention success in relation to both health and water quality outcomes; 1 study recorded uptake (use of soap) as well as health outcomes. 2 studies were unblinded randomized-controlled trials, while 4 were uncontrolled longitudinal studies. 2 studies were graded as providing high quality evidence; 3 studies provided moderate and 1 study low quality evidence.

conclusionThe current evidence base on the impact of WASH interventions on health outcomes in humanitarian crises is extremely limited, and numerous methodological limitations limit the ability to determine associative, let alone causal, relationships.

Indexed as

EmergenciesHygieneSanitationWaterDiarrheaHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareWater

Identifiers

PMID26398228
PMCPMC4580573
OpenAlexW1835489350

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.