Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 632

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Interventions to improve water quality for preventing diarrhoea: systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Clasen, Thomas, Schmidt, Wolf-Peter, Rabie, Tamer, Roberts, Ian, Cairncross, Sandy·2007·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of interventions to improve the microbial quality of drinking water for preventing diarrhoea. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group's trials register, CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, LILACS; hand searching; and correspondence with experts and relevant organisations. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised and quasirandomised controlled trials of interventions to improve the microbial quality of drinking water for preventing diarrhoea in adults and in children in settings with endemic disease. DATA EXTRACTION: Allocation concealment, blinding, losses to follow-up, type of intervention, outcome measures, and measures of effect. Pooled effect estimates were calculated within the appropriate subgroups. DATA SYNTHESIS: 33 reports from 21 countries documenting 42 comparisons were included. Variations in design, setting, and type and point of intervention, and variations in defining, assessing, calculating, and reporting outcomes limited the comparability of study results and pooling of results by meta-analysis. In general, interventions to improve the microbial quality of drinking water are effective in preventing diarrhoea. Effectiveness was not conditioned on the presence of improved water supplies or sanitation in the study setting and was not enhanced by combining the intervention with instructions on basic hygiene, a water storage vessel, or improved sanitation or water supplies--other common environmental interventions intended to prevent diarrhoea. CONCLUSION: Interventions to improve water quality are generally effective for preventing diarrhoea in all ages and in under 5s. Significant heterogeneity among the trials suggests that the level of effectiveness may depend on a variety of conditions that research to date cannot fully explain.

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.39118.489931.be

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 29 references

Cited by

See all 632

Metadata

Authors
Clasen, T., Schmidt, W.-P., Rabie, T., Roberts, I., & Cairncross, S.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2007-03-12
Volume
334
Issue
7597
Pages
782
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2135576309
Cited by
632
References
29
FWCI
3.35
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: Interventions to improve water quality for preventing diarrhoea: systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.39118.489931.be
The paper
Clasen, T., Schmidt, W.-P., Rabie, T., Roberts, I., & Cairncross, S. (2007). Interventions to improve water quality for preventing diarrhoea: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39118.489931.be

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.