tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
J Infect Dis. 2019 Jul 17. pii: jiz372. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiz372. [Epub ahead of print]
[h=1]Interventions in live poultry markets for the control of avian influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis.[/h] Shi N[SUP]1,[/SUP][SUP]2[/SUP], Huang J[SUP]1,[/SUP][SUP]2[/SUP], Zhang X[SUP]3[/SUP], Bao C[SUP]3[/SUP], Yue N[SUP]1,[/SUP][SUP]2[/SUP], Wang Q[SUP]1[/SUP], Cui T[SUP]1[/SUP], Zheng M[SUP]1[/SUP], Huo X[SUP]3[/SUP], Jin H[SUP]1,[/SUP][SUP]2[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]
[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]BACKGROUND:[/h] This review aimed to provide constructive suggestions for the control and management of avian influenza through quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the impact of different live poultry market (LPM) interventions.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h] Both English and Chinese databases were searched for articles that were published on or before November 9, 2018. After extraction and assessment of the included literature, stata14.0 was applied to perform meta-analysis to explore the impacts of LPM interventions.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h] A total of 19 studies were identified. In total, 224 humans, 3550 poultry, and 13,773 environment samples were collected before the intervention; 181 humans, 4519 poultry, and 9562 environments were sampled after LPM interventions. Avian influenza virus (AIV) detection rates of the LPM environment (odds ratio [OR] = 0.393; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.262-0.589) and the incidence of human avian influenza infection (OR = 0.045; 95% CI, 0.025-0.079) were significantly lower after LPM interventions, while LPM interventions on poultry were not significantly effective (OR = 0.803; 95% CI, 0.403-1.597).
[h=4]CONCLUSIONS:[/h] LPM interventions can reduce human infections of avian influenza and the detection rate of AIV in market environments.
? The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] Avian influenza virus; Live poultry market; Live poultry market interventions; Meta-analysis
PMID: 31323094 DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiz372
[h=1]Interventions in live poultry markets for the control of avian influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis.[/h] Shi N[SUP]1,[/SUP][SUP]2[/SUP], Huang J[SUP]1,[/SUP][SUP]2[/SUP], Zhang X[SUP]3[/SUP], Bao C[SUP]3[/SUP], Yue N[SUP]1,[/SUP][SUP]2[/SUP], Wang Q[SUP]1[/SUP], Cui T[SUP]1[/SUP], Zheng M[SUP]1[/SUP], Huo X[SUP]3[/SUP], Jin H[SUP]1,[/SUP][SUP]2[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]
[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]BACKGROUND:[/h] This review aimed to provide constructive suggestions for the control and management of avian influenza through quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the impact of different live poultry market (LPM) interventions.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h] Both English and Chinese databases were searched for articles that were published on or before November 9, 2018. After extraction and assessment of the included literature, stata14.0 was applied to perform meta-analysis to explore the impacts of LPM interventions.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h] A total of 19 studies were identified. In total, 224 humans, 3550 poultry, and 13,773 environment samples were collected before the intervention; 181 humans, 4519 poultry, and 9562 environments were sampled after LPM interventions. Avian influenza virus (AIV) detection rates of the LPM environment (odds ratio [OR] = 0.393; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.262-0.589) and the incidence of human avian influenza infection (OR = 0.045; 95% CI, 0.025-0.079) were significantly lower after LPM interventions, while LPM interventions on poultry were not significantly effective (OR = 0.803; 95% CI, 0.403-1.597).
[h=4]CONCLUSIONS:[/h] LPM interventions can reduce human infections of avian influenza and the detection rate of AIV in market environments.
? The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] Avian influenza virus; Live poultry market; Live poultry market interventions; Meta-analysis
PMID: 31323094 DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiz372