Hartinger 2016.

Study characteristics
Methods	Communities were randomised to a comprehensive intervention was an improved solid‐fuel stove, installation of a kitchen sink with running water, solar drinking water disinfection, education on hand‐washing, and separating animals from the kitchen environment.
Participants	534 children (267 in each group) in 51 communities (25 in intervention, 26 in control group). 250 children/households in the intervention group and 253 children/households in the control group were available for follow‐up. Conducted in a rural farming area
Interventions	Environmental home‐based intervention package consisting of improved solid‐fuel stoves, kitchen sinks, solar disinfection of drinking water, and hygiene promotion. See Table 4 for details.
Outcomes	Laboratory: Escherichia coli (not relevant to this review) Effectiveness: weekly collection of daily diary data on illness. ARI was defined as child presenting cough or difficulty breathing, or both. ALRI was defined as child presenting cough or difficulty breathing, with a raised respiratory rate (> 50 per min in children aged 6 to 11 months and > 40 per min in children aged 12 months) on 2 consecutive measurements. Safety: none described in methods and none reported
Notes	The authors conclude that “combined home‐based environmental interventions slightly reduced childhood diarrhoea, but the confidence interval included unity. Effects on growth and respiratory outcomes were not observed, despite high user compliance of the interventions. The absent effect on respiratory health might be due to insufficient household air quality improvements of the improved stoves and additional time needed to achieve attitudinal and behaviour change when providing composite interventions”. Well‐reported trial. Age of children not reported. Funding: this work was supported by the UBS Optimus Foundation, Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft, Basel, Stiftung EmiliaGuggenheim‐Schnurr, Basel. Conflict of interest: the authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Covariate‐constrained randomisation is mentioned, but method not described.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Method not mentioned
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Unblinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Data collected by field worker and recorded by parent. All would be aware of allocation.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Low attrition rate, reasons stated, balanced between groups.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	It is unlikely that other outcomes were measured but not reported.