| Title | Water, sanitation and hygiene: evidence paper may 2013 |
| Publication Type | Progress Report |
| Year of Publication | 2013 |
| Authors | Cairncross, S, Cumming, O, Jeandron, A, Rheingans, R, Ensink, JHJ, 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 |
| Pagination | 128 |
| Date Published | 05/2013 |
| Publisher | Department for International Development |
| Place Published | London |
| Publication Language | English |
| Keywords | cost 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] |
