Back

Associations of Water Quality with Cholera in Case-Control Studies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Nguyen, T. T.; Kim, C.; Goucher, G. R.; Kim, J.-H.

2023-09-06 epidemiology
10.1101/2023.09.06.23295113 medRxiv
Show abstract

Cholera is a significant health risk for low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), and the threat of outbreaks is likely to increase due to climate change. To keep up to date with the link between water quality and cholera, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to update a previous review. We searched Embase, Web of Science and PubMed for literature published between 2016 and 2022. Search terms were consistent with the previous review. Study quality was assessed using Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Exposures (ROBINS-E). Exposures of water were categorized according to the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program for Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene (JMP) and further divided by the service ladder. Odds ratios were extracted and pooled by performing random-effects meta-analysis. We identified 22 new eligible studies and analysed them together with the 45 studies included in the previous review. Analyses revealed higher odds of cholera when consuming sachet water (OR=1.69, 95% CI: 1.13 to 2.52), unimproved water (OR=2.91, 95% CI: 1.21 to 7.02), surface water (OR=3.40, 95% CI: 2.52 to 4.58), and untreated water (OR=2.51, 95% CI: 2.03 to 3.10). Meanwhile, treating water (OR=0.42, 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.65), by boiling (OR=0.38, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.84) or chlorination (OR=0.37, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.83), and drinking basic water (OR=0.44, 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.69) showed protection. Pooled estimates changed with updated evidence while qualitative insights on the protective or risk factors remain valid. Relatively low-cost methods like boiling or chlorinating water provide good protection comparable to providing basic water to the public. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021271881

Published in BMC Infectious Diseases (predicted rank #12) · training set

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.