Skip to main content
TitleWater, sanitation and hygiene: evidence paper may 2013
Publication TypeProgress Report
Year of Publication2013
AuthorsCairncross, S., Cumming, O., Jeandron, A., Rheingans, R., Ensink, J.H.J., Brown, J., Cavill, S., Baker, S., Schmidt, W.-P., Amery, J., Bibby, S., Harvey, M., Howard, G., Mulligan, J., O’Connor, H., Ryan-Collins, L., Swann, P., Wijesekera, S., Woolnough, D.
Pagination128
Date Published05/2013
PublisherDepartment for International Development
Place PublishedLondon
Publication LanguageEnglish
Keywordscost benefit analysis, sanitation, water related diseases
Abstract
The paper sets out the methods for this review and the approach for assessing the strength of evidence. The different bodies of evidence reviewed in this paper have been graded as ‘good’, ‘suggestive, and ‘weak’ as per the criteria below: 
• Good evidence: several good quality studies that consistently show an effect. For example, randomised trials with a low risk of bias or observational studies showing a large effect size with a low potential for confounding 
• Suggestive evidence: studies which show an effect but statistical support is weak due to insufficient study size. Or, studies which show significant effects but there is a risk of bias and confounding 
• Weak evidence: no studies have been done or, where they been done, they have shown 
inconclusive results [author's abstract]

Disclaimer

The copyright of the documents on this site remains with the original publishers. The documents may therefore not be redistributed commercially without the permission of the original publishers.

Disclaimer

The copyright of the documents on this site remains with the original publishers. The documents may therefore not be redistributed commercially without the permission of the original publishers.

Back to
the top