ReviewIranian journal of public health2024
The Role of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WaSH) Interventions on Health and Behavioral Outcomes during Humanitarian Crisis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Iranian journal of public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modifiable hygiene practices and the burden of protozoal and helminthic infections among undernourished children in Taiz, Yemen: a hospital-based cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Association of Diarrhea Outcomes with Drinking Water Factors, Sanitation, Hygiene, and Malaria Practices in the Population of Béré, Chad.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Knowledge, attitude, and practice of water, sanitation, and hygiene among internally displaced persons in Somalia.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2025Article
- The Role of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WaSH) Interventions on Health and Behavioral Outcomes during Humanitarian Crisis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Iranian journal of public health · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In humanitarian crises, water, sanitation and hygiene interventions are critical for the survival of people. However, strong evidence-based information is still limited. In order to describe the quantity and quality of current evidence, we conducted an evidence gap map provides a visual overview, highlighting areas lacking evidence. Methods: According to developed inclusion and exclusion criteria, a systematic literature search was conducted to find related systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS and Cochrane were searched using search strings from 2000 until 2021. Characteristics of the included reviews were extracted and summarized. Two persons evaluated methodological quality independently using the AMSTAR tool. Invite a third person to solve any discrepancies. Results: This study revealed seven systematic reviews, including one meta-analysis. One study was of high quality, four of medium, and two of low quality. A total of 272 primary studies were included with a median value of 38.8 (range, 6-106) which deeply analyzed for data extraction. Cross-sectional, case-control, and qualitative case studies were the most used study designs. Diarrheal diseases were the most reported outcomes representing 46% of the impact evaluations. Cholera outbreaks account for 43% of a crisis context. The research gaps were insufficient reporting of some interventions with related outcomes and the geographical distribution of current evidence. Conclusion: There is a limitation in current evidence represented by a lack of high-quality and experimental studies investigate the impact of water, sanitation and hygiene (WaSH) interventions on health and behavioral outcomes in humanitarian sittings.
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.