Potential sources of bias in the use of Escherichia coli to measure waterborne diarrhoea risk in low-income settings.

Abstract

Escherichia coli is the standard water quality indicator for diarrhoea risk. Yet, the association between E. coli and diarrhoea is inconsistent across studies without a systematic assessment of methodological differences behind this variation. Most studies measure water quality cross-sectionally with diarrhoea, risking exposure misclassification and reverse causation. Studies use different recall windows for self-reported diarrhoea; longer periods increase potential outcome misclassification through misrecall. Control of confounding is inconsistent across studies. Additionally, diarrhoea measured in unblinded intervention trials can present courtesy bias. We utilised measurements from a randomised trial of water interventions in Bangladesh to assess how these factors affect the E. coli-diarrhoea association. We compared cross-sectional versus prospective measurements of water quality and diarrhoea, 2-versus 7-day symptom recall periods, estimates with and without controlling for confounding and using measurements from control versus intervention arms of the trial. In the control arm, 2-day diarrhoea prevalence, measured prospectively 1 month after water quality, significantly increased with log10 E. coli (PR = 1.50, 1.02-2.20). This association weakened when we used 7-day recall (PR = 1.18, 0.88-1.57), cross-sectional measurements of E. coli and diarrhoea (PR = 1.11, 0.79-1.56) or did not control for confounding (PR = 1.20, 0.88-1.62). Including data from intervention arms led to less interpretable associations, potentially due to courtesy bias, effect modification and/or reverse causation. By systematically addressing potential sources of bias, our analysis demonstrates a clear relationship between E. coli in drinking water and diarrhoea, suggesting that the continued use of E. coli as an indicator of waterborne diarrhoea risk is justified.