Cargando…

Environmental methods for dengue vector control – A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Vector control remains the primary method to prevent dengue infections. Environmental interventions represent sustainable and safe methods as there are limited risks of environmental contamination and toxicity. The objective of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analys...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Buhler, Claudia, Winkler, Volker, Runge-Ranzinger, Silvia, Boyce, Ross, Horstick, Olaf
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6650086/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31295250
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007420
_version_ 1783438095248523264
author Buhler, Claudia
Winkler, Volker
Runge-Ranzinger, Silvia
Boyce, Ross
Horstick, Olaf
author_facet Buhler, Claudia
Winkler, Volker
Runge-Ranzinger, Silvia
Boyce, Ross
Horstick, Olaf
author_sort Buhler, Claudia
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Vector control remains the primary method to prevent dengue infections. Environmental interventions represent sustainable and safe methods as there are limited risks of environmental contamination and toxicity. The objective of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the following environmental methods for dengue vector control. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature search was conducted using the databases PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, the Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. Quality assessment was done using the CONSORT 2010 checklist. For the meta-analysis the difference-in-differences (DID) and the difference-of-endlines (DOE) were calculated according to the Schmidt-Hunter method for the Breteau index (BI) and the pupae per person index (PPI). Nineteen studies were eligible for the systematic review, sixteen contributed data to the meta-analysis. The following methods were evaluated: (a) container covers with and without insecticides, (b) waste management and clean-up campaigns, and (c) elimination of breeding sites by rendering potential mosquito breeding sites unusable or by eliminating them. Study quality was highest for container covers with insecticides, followed by waste management without direct garbage collection and elimination of breeding places. Both, systematic review and meta-analysis, showed a weak effect of the interventions on larval populations, with no obvious differences between the results of each individual method. For the meta-analysis, both, container covers without insecticides (BI: DID -7.9, DOE -5) and waste management with direct garbage collection (BI: DID -8.83, DOE -6.2) achieved the strongest reductions for the BI, whereas for the PPI results were almost opposite, with container covers with insecticides (PPI: DID -0.83, DOE 0.09) and elimination of breeding places (PPI: DID -0.95, DOE -0.83) showing the strongest effects. CONCLUSIONS: Each of the investigated environmental methods showed some effectiveness in reducing larval and pupal densities of Aedes sp. mosquitoes. However, there is a need for more comparable high-quality studies at an adequate standard to strengthen this evidence.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6650086
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66500862019-07-25 Environmental methods for dengue vector control – A systematic review and meta-analysis Buhler, Claudia Winkler, Volker Runge-Ranzinger, Silvia Boyce, Ross Horstick, Olaf PLoS Negl Trop Dis Research Article BACKGROUND: Vector control remains the primary method to prevent dengue infections. Environmental interventions represent sustainable and safe methods as there are limited risks of environmental contamination and toxicity. The objective of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the following environmental methods for dengue vector control. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature search was conducted using the databases PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, the Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. Quality assessment was done using the CONSORT 2010 checklist. For the meta-analysis the difference-in-differences (DID) and the difference-of-endlines (DOE) were calculated according to the Schmidt-Hunter method for the Breteau index (BI) and the pupae per person index (PPI). Nineteen studies were eligible for the systematic review, sixteen contributed data to the meta-analysis. The following methods were evaluated: (a) container covers with and without insecticides, (b) waste management and clean-up campaigns, and (c) elimination of breeding sites by rendering potential mosquito breeding sites unusable or by eliminating them. Study quality was highest for container covers with insecticides, followed by waste management without direct garbage collection and elimination of breeding places. Both, systematic review and meta-analysis, showed a weak effect of the interventions on larval populations, with no obvious differences between the results of each individual method. For the meta-analysis, both, container covers without insecticides (BI: DID -7.9, DOE -5) and waste management with direct garbage collection (BI: DID -8.83, DOE -6.2) achieved the strongest reductions for the BI, whereas for the PPI results were almost opposite, with container covers with insecticides (PPI: DID -0.83, DOE 0.09) and elimination of breeding places (PPI: DID -0.95, DOE -0.83) showing the strongest effects. CONCLUSIONS: Each of the investigated environmental methods showed some effectiveness in reducing larval and pupal densities of Aedes sp. mosquitoes. However, there is a need for more comparable high-quality studies at an adequate standard to strengthen this evidence. Public Library of Science 2019-07-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6650086/ /pubmed/31295250 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007420 Text en © 2019 Buhler et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Buhler, Claudia
Winkler, Volker
Runge-Ranzinger, Silvia
Boyce, Ross
Horstick, Olaf
Environmental methods for dengue vector control – A systematic review and meta-analysis
title Environmental methods for dengue vector control – A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Environmental methods for dengue vector control – A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Environmental methods for dengue vector control – A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Environmental methods for dengue vector control – A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Environmental methods for dengue vector control – A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort environmental methods for dengue vector control – a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6650086/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31295250
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007420
work_keys_str_mv AT buhlerclaudia environmentalmethodsfordenguevectorcontrolasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT winklervolker environmentalmethodsfordenguevectorcontrolasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT rungeranzingersilvia environmentalmethodsfordenguevectorcontrolasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT boyceross environmentalmethodsfordenguevectorcontrolasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT horstickolaf environmentalmethodsfordenguevectorcontrolasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis