Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34649847›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Effectiveness of hygiene kit distribution to reduce cholera transmission in Kasaï-Oriental, Democratic Republic of Congo, 2018: a prospective cohort study.

Lauren D'Mello-Guyett, Oliver Cumming, Sharla Bonneville, Rob D'hondt, Maria Mashako, Brunette Nakoka, Alexandre Gorski, Dorien Verheyen, Rafael Van den Bergh, Placide Okitayemba Welo and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Lauren D'Mello-GuyettLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK lauren.dmello-guyett@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8174-1737
Oliver CummingLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Sharla BonnevilleMédecins Sans Frontières, Kinshasa, Congo.
Rob D'hondtMédecins Sans Frontières, Brussels, Belgium.
Maria MashakoMédecins Sans Frontières, Kinshasa, Congo.
Brunette NakokaMédecins Sans Frontières, Kinshasa, Congo.
Alexandre GorskiMédecins Sans Frontières, Kinshasa, Congo.
Dorien VerheyenMédecins Sans Frontières, Brussels, Belgium.
Rafael Van den BerghMédecins Sans Frontières, Brussels, Belgium.
Placide Okitayemba WeloMinistry of Health, Kinshasa, Congo.
Peter MaesUNICEF, Kinshasa, Congo.
Francesco ChecchiLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBMédecins Sans Frontières · BEMinistry of Public Health · CD

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHousehold contacts of cholera cases are at a greater risk of

methodsTo investigate the effectiveness of the intervention and risk factors for cholera infection, we conducted a prospective cohort study and followed household contacts for 7 days after patient admission. Clinical surveillance among household contacts was based on self-reported symptoms of cholera and diarrhoea, and environmental surveillance through the collection and analysis of food and water samples.

resultsFrom 94 eligible households, 469 household contacts were enrolled and 444 completed follow-up. Multivariate analysis suggested evidence of a dose-response relationship with increased kit use associated with decreased relative risk of suspected cholera: household contacts in the high kit-use group had a 66% lower incidence of suspected cholera (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 0.34, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.03, p=0.055), the mid-use group had a 53% lower incidence (aRR 0.47, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.29, p=1.44) and low-use group had 22% lower incidence (aRR 0.78, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.53, p=0.684), compared with household contacts without a kit. Drinking water contamination was significantly reduced among households in receipt of a kit. There was no significant effect on self-reported diarrhoea or food contamination.

conclusionThe integration of a hygiene kit intervention to case-households may be effective in reducing cholera transmission among household contacts and environmental contamination within the household. Further work is required to evaluate whether other proactive localised distribution among patients and case-households or to households surrounding cholera cases can be used in future cholera response programmes in emergency contexts.

Indexed as

CholeraVibrio choleraeDemocratic Republic of the CongoHumansHygieneProspective Studiesepidemiologyinfectious diseasespublic health

Identifiers

PMID34649847
PMCPMC8522665
OpenAlexW3205481162

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.