Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 164

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Household based treatment of drinking water with flocculant-disinfectant for preventing diarrhoea in areas with turbid source water in rural western Kenya: cluster randomised controlled trial

Open access
Crump, John A, Otieno, Peter O, Slutsker, Laurence, Keswick, Bruce H, Rosen, Daniel H, Hoekstra, R Michael, Vulule, John M, Luby, Stephen P·2005·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect on prevalence of diarrhoea and mortality of household based treatment of drinking water with flocculant-disinfectant, sodium hypochlorite, and standard practices in areas with turbid water source in Africa. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial over 20 weeks. SETTING: Family compounds, each containing several houses, in rural western Kenya. PARTICIPANTS: 6650 people in 605 family compounds. INTERVENTION: Water treatment: flocculant-disinfectant, sodium hypochlorite, and usual practice (control). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of diarrhoea and all cause mortality. Escherichia coli concentration, free residual chlorine concentration, and turbidity in household drinking water as surrogates for effectiveness of water treatment. RESULTS: In children < 2 years old, compared with those in the control compounds, the absolute difference in prevalence of diarrhoea was -25% in the flocculant-disinfectant arm (95% confidence interval -40 to -5) and -17% in the sodium hypochlorite arm (-34 to 4). In all age groups compared with control, the absolute difference in prevalence was -19% in the flocculant-disinfectant arm (-34 to -2) and -26% in the sodium hypochlorite arm (-39 to -9). There were significantly fewer deaths in the intervention compounds than in the control compounds (relative risk of death 0.58, P = 0.036). Fourteen per cent of water samples from control compounds had E coli concentrations < 1 CFU/100 ml compared with 82% in flocculant-disinfectant and 78% in sodium hypochlorite compounds. The mean turbidity of drinking water was 8 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) in flocculant-disinfectant households, compared with 55 NTU in the two other compounds (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In areas of turbid water, flocculant-disinfectant was associated with a significant reduction in diarrhoea among children < 2 years. This health benefit, combined with a significant reduction in turbidity, suggests that the flocculant-disinfectant is well suited to areas with highly contaminated and turbid water.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.38512.618681.e0

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 164

Metadata

Authors
Crump, J. A., Otieno, P. O., Slutsker, L., Keswick, B. H., Rosen, D. H., Hoekstra, R. M., Vulule, J. M., & Luby, S. P.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2005-07-26
Volume
331
Issue
7515
Pages
478
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2124292285
Cited by
164
References
0
FWCI
10.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Household based treatment of drinking water with flocculant-disinfectant for preventing diarrhoea in areas with turbid source water in rural western Kenya: cluster randomised controlled trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.38512.618681.e0
The paper
Crump, J. A., Otieno, P. O., Slutsker, L., Keswick, B. H., Rosen, D. H., Hoekstra, R. M., Vulule, J. M., & Luby, S. P. (2005). Household based treatment of drinking water with flocculant-disinfectant for preventing diarrhoea in areas with turbid source water in rural western Kenya: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38512.618681.e0

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.