Suppr超能文献

改善水质以预防腹泻的干预措施。

Interventions to improve water quality for preventing diarrhoea.

作者信息

Clasen Thomas F, Alexander Kelly T, Sinclair David, Boisson Sophie, Peletz Rachel, Chang Howard H, Majorin Fiona, Cairncross Sandy

机构信息

Department of Environmental Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA, USA, 30322.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Oct 20;2015(10):CD004794. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004794.pub3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Diarrhoea is a major cause of death and disease, especially among young children in low-income countries. In these settings, many infectious agents associated with diarrhoea are spread through water contaminated with faeces.In remote and low-income settings, source-based water quality improvement includes providing protected groundwater (springs, wells, and bore holes), or harvested rainwater as an alternative to surface sources (rivers and lakes). Point-of-use water quality improvement interventions include boiling, chlorination, flocculation, filtration, or solar disinfection, mainly conducted at home.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions to improve water quality for preventing diarrhoea.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (11 November 2014), CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library, 7 November 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to 10 November 2014), EMBASE (1974 to 10 November 2014), and LILACS (1982 to 7 November 2014). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings, contacted researchers and organizations working in the field, and checked references from identified studies through 11 November 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and controlled before-and-after studies (CBA) comparing interventions aimed at improving the microbiological quality of drinking water with no intervention in children and adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used meta-analyses to estimate pooled measures of effect, where appropriate, and investigated potential sources of heterogeneity using subgroup analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-five cluster-RCTs, two quasi-RCTs, and eight CBA studies, including over 84,000 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Most included studies were conducted in low- or middle-income countries (LMICs) (50 studies) with unimproved water sources (30 studies) and unimproved or unclear sanitation (34 studies). The primary outcome in most studies was self-reported diarrhoea, which is at high risk of bias due to the lack of blinding in over 80% of the included studies. Source-based water quality improvementsThere is currently insufficient evidence to know if source-based improvements such as protected wells, communal tap stands, or chlorination/filtration of community sources consistently reduce diarrhoea (one cluster-RCT, five CBA studies, very low quality evidence). We found no studies evaluating reliable piped-in water supplies delivered to households. Point-of-use water quality interventionsOn average, distributing water disinfection products for use at the household level may reduce diarrhoea by around one quarter (Home chlorination products: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.91; 14 trials, 30,746 participants, low quality evidence; flocculation and disinfection sachets: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.82, four trials, 11,788 participants, moderate quality evidence). However, there was substantial heterogeneity in the size of the effect estimates between individual studies.Point-of-use filtration systems probably reduce diarrhoea by around a half (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.59, 18 trials, 15,582 participants, moderate quality evidence). Important reductions in diarrhoea episodes were shown with ceramic filters, biosand systems and LifeStraw® filters; (Ceramic: RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.53; eight trials, 5763 participants, moderate quality evidence; Biosand: RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.57; four trials, 5504 participants, moderate quality evidence; LifeStraw®: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.93; three trials, 3259 participants, low quality evidence). Plumbed in filters have only been evaluated in high-income settings (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.94, three trials, 1056 participants, fixed effects model).In low-income settings, solar water disinfection (SODIS) by distribution of plastic bottles with instructions to leave filled bottles in direct sunlight for at least six hours before drinking probably reduces diarrhoea by around a third (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.94; four trials, 3460 participants, moderate quality evidence).In subgroup analyses, larger effects were seen in trials with higher adherence, and trials that provided a safe storage container. In most cases, the reduction in diarrhoea shown in the studies was evident in settings with improved and unimproved water sources and sanitation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Interventions that address the microbial contamination of water at the point-of-use may be important interim measures to improve drinking water quality until homes can be reached with safe, reliable, piped-in water connections. The average estimates of effect for each individual point-of-use intervention generally show important effects. Comparisons between these estimates do not provide evidence of superiority of one intervention over another, as such comparisons are confounded by the study setting, design, and population.Further studies assessing the effects of household connections and chlorination at the point of delivery will help improve our knowledge base. As evidence suggests effectiveness improves with adherence, studies assessing programmatic approaches to optimising coverage and long-term utilization of these interventions among vulnerable populations could also help strategies to improve health outcomes.

摘要

背景

腹泻是导致死亡和疾病的主要原因,在低收入国家的幼儿中尤为如此。在这些地区,许多与腹泻相关的传染源通过受粪便污染的水传播。在偏远和低收入地区,基于水源的水质改善措施包括提供受保护的地下水(泉水、水井和钻孔),或收集雨水作为地表水(河流和湖泊)的替代水源。家庭层面的水质改善干预措施包括煮沸、氯化、絮凝、过滤或太阳能消毒,主要在家庭中进行。

目的

评估改善水质以预防腹泻的干预措施的有效性。

检索方法

我们检索了Cochrane传染病小组专业注册库(2014年11月11日)、CENTRAL(Cochrane图书馆,2014年11月7日)、MEDLINE(1966年至2014年11月10日)、EMBASE(1974年至2014年11月10日)和LILACS(1982年至2014年11月7日)。我们还手工检索了相关会议记录,联系了该领域的研究人员和组织,并检查了截至2014年11月11日已识别研究的参考文献。

入选标准

比较旨在改善饮用水微生物质量的干预措施与未对儿童和成人进行干预的随机对照试验(RCT)、半随机对照试验和前后对照研究(CBA)。

数据收集与分析

两位综述作者独立评估试验质量并提取数据。我们在适当情况下使用荟萃分析来估计合并效应量,并使用亚组分析调查潜在的异质性来源。我们使用GRADE方法评估证据质量。

主要结果

45项整群随机对照试验、2项半随机对照试验和8项前后对照研究,包括超过84,000名参与者,符合纳入标准。大多数纳入研究在低收入或中等收入国家(LMICs)进行(50项研究),水源未改善(30项研究),卫生设施未改善或情况不明(34项研究)。大多数研究的主要结局是自我报告的腹泻,由于超过80%的纳入研究缺乏盲法,该结局存在较高的偏倚风险。

基于水源的水质改善

目前尚无足够证据了解诸如保护水井、公共水龙头或对社区水源进行氯化/过滤等基于水源的改善措施是否能持续减少腹泻(1项整群随机对照试验、5项前后对照研究,极低质量证据)。我们未找到评估可靠的家庭管道供水的研究。

家庭层面的水质干预措施

平均而言,分发家庭用水消毒产品可能会使腹泻减少约四分之一(家用氯化产品:RR 0.77,95%CI 0.65至0.91;14项试验,30,746名参与者,低质量证据;絮凝和消毒包:RR 0.69,95%CI 0.58至0.82,4项试验,11,788名参与者,中等质量证据)。然而,各研究之间效应估计值的大小存在很大异质性。

家庭过滤系统可能会使腹泻减少约一半(RR 0.48,95%CI 0.38至0.59,18项试验,15,582名参与者,中等质量证据)。陶瓷过滤器、生物砂系统和LifeStraw®过滤器显示腹泻发作有显著减少;(陶瓷:RR 0.39,95%CI 0.28至0.53;8项试验,5763名参与者,中等质量证据;生物砂:RR 0.47,95%CI 0.39至0.57;4项试验,5504名参与者,中等质量证据;LifeStraw®:RR 0.69,95%CI 0.51至0.93;3项试验,3259名参与者,低质量证据)。管道过滤器仅在高收入环境中进行了评估(RR 0.81,95%CI 0.71至0.94,3项试验,1056名参与者,固定效应模型)。

在低收入环境中,通过分发塑料瓶并指示在饮用前将装满的瓶子在直射阳光下放置至少6小时进行太阳能水消毒(SODIS)可能会使腹泻减少约三分之一(RR 0.62,95%CI 0.42至0.94;4项试验,3460名参与者,中等质量证据)。

在亚组分析中,在依从性较高的试验以及提供安全储存容器的试验中观察到更大的效应。在大多数情况下,研究中显示的腹泻减少在水源和卫生设施改善及未改善的环境中均很明显。

作者结论

在家庭能够接通安全、可靠的管道供水之前,解决家庭层面水的微生物污染问题的干预措施可能是改善饮用水质量的重要临时措施。每种家庭层面干预措施的平均效应估计值总体上显示出显著效果。这些估计值之间的比较并未提供一种干预措施优于另一种干预措施的证据,因为此类比较受到研究环境、设计和人群的影响。

进一步评估家庭连接和供水点氯化效果的研究将有助于完善我们的知识库。由于有证据表明依从性可提高有效性,评估优化这些干预措施在弱势群体中的覆盖范围和长期使用的规划方法的研究也有助于改善健康结局的策略制定。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5230/6532740/b2611708bc9f/nCD004794-AFig-FIG01.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验