Household water treatment in developing countries: comparing different intervention types using meta-regression.
Household water treatment (HWT) is being widely promoted as an appropriate intervention for reducing the burden of waterborne disease in poor communities in developing countries. A recent study has raised concerns about the effectiveness of HWT, in part because of concerns over the lack of blinding and in part because of considerable heterogeneity in the reported effectiveness of randomized controlled trials. This study set out to attempt to investigate the causes of this heterogeneity and so identify factors associated with good health gains. Studies identified in an earlier systematic review and meta-analysis were supplemented with more recently published randomized controlled trials. A total of 28 separate studies of randomized controlled trials of HWT with 39 intervention arms were included in the analysis. Heterogeneity was studied using the "metareg" command in Stata. Initial analyses with single candidate predictors were undertaken and all variables significant at the P < 0.2 level were included in a final regression model. Further analyses were done to estimate the effect of the interventions over time by MonteCarlo modeling using @Risk and the parameter estimates from the final regression model. The overall effect size of all unblinded studies was relative risk = 0.56 (95% confidence intervals 0.51-0.63), but after adjusting for bias due to lack of blinding the effect size was much lower (RR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.76-0.97). Four main variables were significant predictors of effectiveness of intervention in a multipredictor meta regression model: Log duration of study follow-up (regression coefficient of log effect size = 0.186, standard error (SE) = 0.072), whether or not the study was blinded (coefficient 0.251, SE 0.066) and being conducted in an emergency setting (coefficient -0.351, SE 0.076) were all significant predictors of effect size in the final model. Compared to the ceramic filter all other interventions were much less effective (Biosand 0.247, 0.073; chlorine and safe waste storage 0.295, 0.061; combined coagulant-chlorine 0.2349, 0.067; SODIS 0.302, 0.068). A Monte Carlo model predicted that over 12 months ceramic filters were likely to be still effective at reducing disease, whereas SODIS, chlorination, and coagulation-chlorination had little if any benefit. Indeed these three interventions are predicted to have the same or less effect than what may be expected due purely to reporting bias in unblinded studies With the currently available evidence ceramic filters are the most effective form of HWT in the longterm, disinfection-only interventions including SODIS appear to have poor if any longterm public health benefit.
Hunter
Paul R
PR
School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K. Paul.Hunter@uea.ac.uk
D015982:Bias; D003906:Developing Countries; D005191:Family Characteristics; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D015201:Meta-Analysis as Topic; D012044:Regression Analysis; D012307:Risk Factors; D018508:Water Purification