Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28599671›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2017

Is there a difference in prevalence of helminths between households using ecological sanitation and those using traditional pit latrines? A latrine based cross sectional comparative study in Malawi.

Save Kumwenda, Chisomo Msefula, Wilfred Kadewa, Yohane Diness, Charles Kato, Tracy Morse, Bagrey Ngwira

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. PersistentEnvironmental science & technology · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Save KumwendaCollege of Medicine, University of Malawi, Chichiri, P/Bag 360, Blantyre 3, Malawi. skumwenda@poly.ac.mw.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3329-5875
Chisomo MsefulaCollege of Medicine, University of Malawi, Chichiri, P/Bag 360, Blantyre 3, Malawi.
Wilfred KadewaLilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources, P. O. Box 219, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Yohane DinessCollege of Medicine, University of Malawi, Chichiri, P/Bag 360, Blantyre 3, Malawi.
Charles KatoSchool of Bio-security, Biotechnical & Laboratory Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Animal Resources & Bio-security, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Tracy MorseThe Polytechnic, University of Malawi, Chichiri, P/Bag 303, Blantyre 3, Malawi.
Bagrey NgwiraThe Polytechnic, University of Malawi, Chichiri, P/Bag 303, Blantyre 3, Malawi.
University of Malawi · MWLilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources · MWMakerere University · UG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudies have shown that households using sludge from human excreta for agriculture are at an increased risk of soil transmitted helminths. However, while use of ecological sanitation (EcoSan) latrines is increasing in most African countries including Malawi, few studies have been done to check whether use of such sludge could potentially increase the prevalence of helminthic infections among household members as a results of exposure to faecal sludge/compared to use of traditional latrines.

methodsA cross sectional study was done targeting households using EcoSan and traditional pit latrines. Samples were collected from both types of latrines in Chikwawa (rural) and Blantyre (urban) districts. These two districts have a high number of EcoSan latrines in southern region of Malawi. 156 latrines were sampled (n = 95 traditional; n = 61 EcoSan), and processed following standard guidelines using modified triple floatation method. Identification of helminth ova (Ascaris lumbricoides, hookworms, Trichuris trichiura, Taenia spp. and Diphyllobothrium latum) was done using standard microscopy methods. The difference between the prevalence and mean concentration of helminths between the two types of latrines was tested using Chi Square and t test respectively.

resultsOf the total latrines tested, 85.9% (n = 134) had at least one species of helminth while 84.6% (n = 132) had at least a STH, with 82.0% (n = 50) in EcoSan and 86.3% (n = 82) in traditional pit latrines. There was no significant difference between the prevalence of helminths in EcoSan and traditional pit latrines [χ

conclusionThere was no significant difference between overall prevalence of helminths between households using EcoSan and those using traditional pit latrines. However, Ascaris lumbricoides was significantly higher in households using EcoSan latrines. EcoSan users need awareness on safe ways of handling faecal sludge in order to reduce chances of reinfection from Ascaris lumbricoides. Further research should be undertaken on household members to identify those infected and potential routes of infection to enable preventive targeting.

Indexed as

AgricultureAnimalsCross-Sectional StudiesFamily CharacteristicsFecesFemaleHelminthiasisHelminthsMalawiMalePrevalenceRural PopulationSanitationSewageSocioeconomic FactorsToilet FacilitiesSewageAscaris lumbricoidesEcoSanHuman faecal matter and riskPit latrinesSoil transmitted helminths

Identifiers

PMID28599671
PMCPMC5466731
OpenAlexW2623058061

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.