Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28594828›Full record

SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2017

An individual-level meta-analysis assessing the impact of community-level sanitation access on child stunting, anemia, and diarrhea: Evidence from DHS and MICS surveys.

David A Larsen, Thomas Grisham, Erik Slawsky, Lutchmie Narine

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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.

David A LarsenSyracuse University Department of Public Health, Food Studies and Nutrition; Syracuse, NY; United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1876-6536
Thomas GrishamSyracuse University Department of Public Health, Food Studies and Nutrition; Syracuse, NY; United States of America.
Erik SlawskySyracuse University Department of Public Health, Food Studies and Nutrition; Syracuse, NY; United States of America.
Lutchmie NarineSyracuse University Department of Public Health, Food Studies and Nutrition; Syracuse, NY; United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA lack of access to sanitation is an important risk factor child health, facilitating fecal-oral transmission of pathogens including soil-transmitted helminthes and various causes of diarrheal disease. We conducted a meta-analysis of cross-sectional surveys to determine the impact that community-level sanitation access has on child health for children with and without household sanitation access. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsUsing 301 two-stage demographic health surveys and multiple indicator cluster surveys conducted between 1990 and 2015 we calculated the sanitation access in the community as the proportion of households in the sampled cluster that had household access to any type of sanitation facility. We then conducted exact matching of children based on various predictors of living in a community with high access to sanitation. Using logistic regression with the matched group as a random intercept we examined the association between the child health outcomes of stunted growth, any anemia, moderate or severe anemia, and diarrhea in the previous two weeks and the exposure of living in a community with varying degrees of community-level sanitation access. For children with household-level sanitation access, living in a community with 100% sanitation access was associated with lowered odds of stunting (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.97, 95%; confidence interval (CI) = 0.94-1.00; n = 14,153 matched groups, 1,175,167 children), any anemia (AOR = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.67-0.78; n = 5,319 matched groups, 299,033 children), moderate or severe anemia (AOR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.68-0.77; n = 5,319 matched groups, 299,033 children) and diarrhea (AOR = 0.94; 95% CI = 0.91-0.97); n = 16,379 matched groups, 1,603,731 children) compared to living in a community with < 30% sanitation access. For children without household-level sanitation access, living in communities with 0% sanitation access was associated with higher odds of stunting (AOR = 1.04, 95% CI = 1.02-1.06; n = 14,153 matched groups, 1,175,167 children), any anemia (AOR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.00-1.09; n = 5,319 matched groups, 299,033 children), moderate or severe anemia (AOR = 1.04, 95% CI = 1.00-1.09; n = 5,319 matched groups, 299,033 children) but not diarrhea (AOR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.98-1.02; n = 16,379 matched groups, 1,603,731 children) compared to children without household-level sanitation access living in communities with 1-30% sanitation access. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Community-level sanitation access is associated with improved child health outcomes independent of household-level sanitation access. The proportion of children living in communities with 100% sanitation access throughout the world is appallingly low. Ensuring sanitation access to all by 2030 will greatly improve child health.

Indexed as

AnemiaChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesDiarrheaFamily CharacteristicsFemaleGrowth DisordersHealth SurveysHumansInfantLogistic ModelsMaleMulticenter Studies as TopicOdds RatioRisk FactorsSanitation

Identifiers

PMID28594828
PMCPMC5464528

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.