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:
- The surveillance programme for avian influenza (AI) in Norwegian wildlife 2025 58 minute(s) ago
- The surveillance programme for avian influenza (AI) in poultry in Norway 2025 1 hours ago
- Emergence of Novel Reassortant H3N2 Avian Influenza Viruses in Southern China: Genetic Complexity and Pathogenicity in Chickens and Mice 2 hours ago
- Pathological evidence of neurotropism and oculotropism in wild black-headed gulls naturally infected with H5N1 high pathogenicity avian influenza 2 hours ago
- Birth cohort effects in adults associated with influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine effectiveness 14 hours ago
[Go Top] [Close Window]


