Trial reportThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene2021
Community Hand-Dug Wells for Trachoma: A Cluster-Randomized Trial.
Trial report in The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Water, sanitation, and hygiene for control of trachoma in Ethiopia (WUHA): a two-arm, parallel-group, cluster-randomised trial.The Lancet. Global health · 2022Trial
- Changing hygiene behaviours: a cluster-randomized trial, Ethiopia.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2021Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The WHO recommends improving access to water as part of a comprehensive strategy for elimination of trachoma as a public health problem; however, this recommendation is not based on evidence from randomized trials. In a region of Ethiopia with hyperendemic trachoma, seven communities were randomized to a hand-dug well (HDW) and seven communities to no intervention to determine the impact of HDWs on the community prevalence of ocular chlamydia infection (primary prespecified outcome). All communities continued to receive government hygiene and sanitation services and outreach. Participants were not masked, given the nature of the intervention, but laboratory personnel were masked to treatment allocation. Hand-dug wells were successfully built in six of the seven communities; five of these wells were still functional at the conclusion of the trial. At the end of the trial, an average of 74% of households reported traveling < 30 minutes to collect water in the HDW arm, compared with 45% in the control arm, and the daily volume of water used for hygiene was similar (e.g., mean of 0.7 L per person in each arm). The pseudo-median prevalence of ocular chlamydia among 0- to 5-year old children at the 24-month visit was 23% in the HDW group and 13% in the control group (P > 0.99). This small cluster-randomized trial provided no evidence to suggest that simply constructing HDWs, in the absence of other hygiene promotion activities, is effective for reducing transmission of ocular chlamydia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.