ArticleBulletin of the World Health Organization2022
Microbiological contamination of improved water sources, Mozambique.
Article in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictors of household drinking water E. coli contamination: Population-based results from rural areas of Ghana, Malawi, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia.International journal of hygiene and environmental health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess if water from improved sources are microbiologically safe in Niassa province, Mozambique, by examining the presence of total coliforms in different types of water sources. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional household survey in two rural districts of Niassa province during the dry season, from 21 August to 4 October 2019. We observed water sources and conducted microbiological water quality tests and structured household interviews. Findings: We included 1313 households, of which 812 (61.8%) used water from an improved source. There was no significant difference in presence of total coliforms between water sampled at improved and unimproved water sources, 62.7% (509 samples) and 65.7% (329 samples), respectively ( Conclusion: Current access to an improved water source does not ensure microbiological safety of water and thereby using access as the proxy indicator for safe drinking and cooking water is questionable. Poor quality of water calls for the need for integration of water quality assessment into regular monitoring programmes.
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.