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:
- Emergence of HPAI H5N6 Clade 2.3.4.4b in Wild Birds: A Case Study From South Korea, 2023 3 days ago
- Age-Dependent Pathogenesis of Influenza A Virus H7N9 Mediated Through PB1-F2-Induced Mitochondrial DNA Release and Activation of cGAS-STING-NF-κB Signaling 3 days ago
- Genotypic Clustering of H5N1 Avian Influenza Viruses in North America Evaluated by Ordination Analysis 3 days ago
- Protocol for enhanced human surveillance of avian influenza A(H5N1) on farms in Canada 3 days ago
- Evolutionary analysis of Hemagglutinin and neuraminidase gene variation in H1N1 swine influenza virus from vaccine intervention in China 3 days ago
[Go Top] [Close Window]
