Shi N, et al. Interventions in live poultry markets for the control of avian influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Infect Dis. 2019 Jul 17.
BACKGROUND:
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.
METHODS:
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.
RESULTS:
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).
CONCLUSIONS:
LPM interventions can reduce human infections of avian influenza and the detection rate of AIV in market environments.
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.
METHODS:
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.
RESULTS:
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).
CONCLUSIONS:
LPM interventions can reduce human infections of avian influenza and the detection rate of AIV in market environments.
See Also:
Latest articles in those days:
- High-throughput pseudovirus neutralisation maps the antigenic landscape of influenza A/H1N1 viruses 13 hours ago
- Timely vaccine strain selection and genomic surveillance improve evolutionary forecast accuracy of seasonal influenza A/H3N2 13 hours ago
- Evaluation of a Novel Data Source for National Influenza Surveillance: Influenza Hospitalization Data in the National Healthcare Safety Network, United States, September 2021-April 2024 13 hours ago
- Scenarios for pre-pandemic zoonotic influenza preparedness and response 13 hours ago
- Stability of Avian Influenza A(H5N1) Virus in Milk from Infected Cows and Virus-Spiked Milk 2 days ago
[Go Top] [Close Window]
