The sensitivity analysis of the relationship between unsafe methods of disposing of children's feces and diarrhea in children is presented in Table 2. To identify the potential source of heterogeneity in the analysis, a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis related to unsafe methods of disposing of childhood feces and childhood diarrhea was performed. According to the results, not a single study had an effect on overall childhood diarrhea.

Table 2

Sensitivity analysis of 20 studies included in the systematic review and meta-analysis of unsafe child feces disposal practices and its association with childhood diarrhea

No.Omitted studyPooled odds ratio(95% CI)I2P-value
1 Aliyu & Dahiru (2019)  1.05 0.84–1.26 97.67 0.001 
2 Azage & Haile (2015)  1.05 0.84–1.27 97.49 0.001 
3 Bawankule et al. (2017)  1.02 0.81–1.24 97.27 0.001 
4 Cronin et al. (2016)  1.02 0.81–1.22 97.43 0.001 
5 Sahiledengle (2020)  1.06 0.84–1.29 97.68 0.001 
6 Sahiledengle (2019)  1.07 0.86–1.29 97.57 0.001 
7 Seidu et al. (2020)  1.06 0.85–1.28 97.75 0.001 
8 Seidu et al. (2021)  1.07 0.84–1.29 97.22 0.001 
9 Simelane et al. (2020)  1.07 0.84–1.29 97.84 0.001 
10 Vong et al. (2021)  1.02 0.80–1.23 97.58 0.001 
11 Mihrete et al. (2014)  1.08 0.88–1.28 97.23 0.001 
12 Sidabalok et al. (2019)  1.00 0.81–1.20 97.23 0.001 
13 Alemayehu et al. (2021)  1.01 0.82–1.21 97.35 0.001 
14 Wilunda & Alessio (2009)  1.02 0.81–1.23 97.48 0.001 
15 Soboksa (2021)  1.07 0.85–1.29 97.66 0.001 
16 Islam et al. (2018)  1.04 0.83–1.25 97.63 0.001 
17 Getahun & Adane (2021)  1.01 0.81–1.20 97.25 0.001 
18 Aluko et al. (2017)  1.07 0.89–1.29 96.69 0.001 
19 Soboksa et al. (2021) 1.00 0.80–1.20 97.41 0.001 
20 Siruri (2013)  1.03 0.83–1.23 97.52 0.001 
No.Omitted studyPooled odds ratio(95% CI)I2P-value
1 Aliyu & Dahiru (2019)  1.05 0.84–1.26 97.67 0.001 
2 Azage & Haile (2015)  1.05 0.84–1.27 97.49 0.001 
3 Bawankule et al. (2017)  1.02 0.81–1.24 97.27 0.001 
4 Cronin et al. (2016)  1.02 0.81–1.22 97.43 0.001 
5 Sahiledengle (2020)  1.06 0.84–1.29 97.68 0.001 
6 Sahiledengle (2019)  1.07 0.86–1.29 97.57 0.001 
7 Seidu et al. (2020)  1.06 0.85–1.28 97.75 0.001 
8 Seidu et al. (2021)  1.07 0.84–1.29 97.22 0.001 
9 Simelane et al. (2020)  1.07 0.84–1.29 97.84 0.001 
10 Vong et al. (2021)  1.02 0.80–1.23 97.58 0.001 
11 Mihrete et al. (2014)  1.08 0.88–1.28 97.23 0.001 
12 Sidabalok et al. (2019)  1.00 0.81–1.20 97.23 0.001 
13 Alemayehu et al. (2021)  1.01 0.82–1.21 97.35 0.001 
14 Wilunda & Alessio (2009)  1.02 0.81–1.23 97.48 0.001 
15 Soboksa (2021)  1.07 0.85–1.29 97.66 0.001 
16 Islam et al. (2018)  1.04 0.83–1.25 97.63 0.001 
17 Getahun & Adane (2021)  1.01 0.81–1.20 97.25 0.001 
18 Aluko et al. (2017)  1.07 0.89–1.29 96.69 0.001 
19 Soboksa et al. (2021) 1.00 0.80–1.20 97.41 0.001 
20 Siruri (2013)  1.03 0.83–1.23 97.52 0.001 
View Large

Close Modal
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our privacy policy.
Accept