Associations of water quality with cholera in case-control studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Thuy Tien Nguyen, Chaelin Kim, Gerard Goucher, Jong-Hoon Kim
{"title":"Associations of water quality with cholera in case-control studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Thuy Tien Nguyen, Chaelin Kim, Gerard Goucher, Jong-Hoon Kim","doi":"10.1186/s12879-025-11533-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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 while only focusing on water-related exposures. 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 the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Exposures (ROBINS-E). Water-related exposures 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 in addition to 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. Water-related exposures were prioritized to synthesize the evidence on cholera transmission through drinking water, with sanitation and hygiene as additional risk factors. While the JMP service ladder provided a useful classification framework, context-specific differences in infrastructure and interpretation should be considered when evaluating these findings. 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":8981,"journal":{"name":"BMC Infectious Diseases","volume":"25 1","pages":"1165"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12465603/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-025-11533-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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 while only focusing on water-related exposures. 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 the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Exposures (ROBINS-E). Water-related exposures 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 in addition to 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. Water-related exposures were prioritized to synthesize the evidence on cholera transmission through drinking water, with sanitation and hygiene as additional risk factors. While the JMP service ladder provided a useful classification framework, context-specific differences in infrastructure and interpretation should be considered when evaluating these findings. 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.

病例对照研究中水质与霍乱的关系:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
霍乱是低收入和中等收入国家(LMIC)的一项重大健康风险,由于气候变化,暴发的威胁可能会增加。为了及时了解水质与霍乱之间的联系,我们进行了一项系统综述和荟萃分析,以更新之前的一项综述,同时只关注与水有关的暴露。我们在Embase、Web of Science和PubMed检索了2016年至2022年间发表的文献。搜索词与之前的审查一致。使用非随机暴露研究的偏倚风险(ROBINS-E)评估研究质量。根据世卫组织/联合国儿童基金会供水、环境卫生和个人卫生联合监测规划对与水有关的接触进行分类,并按服务等级进一步划分。通过随机效应荟萃分析提取优势比并汇总。我们确定了22项新的符合条件的研究,并在之前综述中纳入的45项研究的基础上对其进行了分析。分析显示,饮用小瓶装水(OR = 1.69, 95% CI: 1.13至2.52)、未经改善的水(OR = 2.91, 95% CI: 1.21至7.02)、地表水(OR = 3.40, 95% CI: 2.52至4.58)和未经处理的水(OR = 2.51, 95% CI: 2.03至3.10)时,霍乱的发生率更高。同时,通过煮沸(OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.17 ~ 0.84)或氯化(OR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.17 ~ 0.83)和饮用碱性水(OR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.27 ~ 0.69)处理水(OR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.27 ~ 0.65)显示出保护作用。优先考虑与水有关的接触,以综合关于通过饮用水传播霍乱的证据,并将环境卫生和个人卫生作为额外的风险因素。虽然JMP服务阶梯提供了一个有用的分类框架,但在评估这些发现时,应考虑到基础设施和解释中的特定上下文差异。汇总估计随着证据的更新而改变,而对保护因素或风险因素的定性见解仍然有效。相对低成本的方法,如煮沸或氯化水,与向公众提供基本水相比,提供了很好的保护。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Infectious Diseases
BMC Infectious Diseases 医学-传染病学
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
860
审稿时长
3.3 months
期刊介绍: BMC Infectious Diseases is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of infectious and sexually transmitted diseases in humans, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信