Comparing Risk Assessment and Intervention Trials for Drinking Water
Author Information
Author(s): Eisenberg Joseph N.S., Hubbard Alan, Wade Timothy J., Sylvester Matthew D., LeChevallier Mark W., Levy Deborah A., Colford John M. Jr.
Primary Institution: University of Michigan
Hypothesis
How do risk assessments compare to randomized trials in estimating health risks from drinking water?
Conclusion
The study found that both risk assessments and intervention trials provide valuable but different estimates of health risks associated with drinking water.
Supporting Evidence
- The estimated attributable disease rate from the trial was −365 cases per 10,000 persons per year.
- The risk assessment predicted a mean rate of disease of 13.9 cases per 10,000 persons per year assuming 4 log removal of viruses.
- The study highlighted the importance of using site-specific data for more accurate risk assessments.
- Both methods have their strengths and weaknesses, providing complementary insights into drinking water risks.
Takeaway
This study looked at two ways to figure out if drinking water makes people sick. One way is to test people directly, and the other is to use models based on data.
Methodology
The study compared a randomized intervention trial with a microbial risk assessment to estimate the risk of gastrointestinal illness from drinking water.
Potential Biases
Potential biases include misclassification of disease outcomes and exposure, which could affect the accuracy of risk estimates.
Limitations
The study's findings may be limited by sample size constraints and biases in both the trial and risk assessment methods.
Participant Demographics
Participants were from Davenport, Iowa, with a total of 1,296 subjects in 456 households.
Statistical Information
Confidence Interval
−2,555 to 1,825
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website