Bouzid Maha, Brainard Julii, Hooper Lee, Hunter Paul R
Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Dec 7;10(12):e0005176. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005176. eCollection 2016 Dec.
There is renewed interest in effective measures to control Zika and dengue vectors. A synthesis of published literature with a focus on the quality of evidence is warranted to determine the effectiveness of vector control strategies.
We conducted a meta-review assessing the effectiveness of any Aedes control measure. We searched Scopus and Medline for relevant reviews through to May 2016. Titles, abstracts and full texts were assessed independently for inclusion by two authors. Data extraction was performed in duplicate and validity of the evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria.
13 systematic reviews that investigated the effect of control measures on entomological parameters or disease incidence were included. Biological controls seem to achieve better reduction of entomological indices than chemical controls, while educational campaigns can reduce breeding habitats. Integrated vector control strategies may not always increase effectiveness. The efficacy of any control programme is dependent on local settings, intervention type, resources and study duration, which may partly explain the varying degree of success between studies. Nevertheless, the quality of evidence was mostly low to very low due to poor reporting of study design, observational methodologies, heterogeneity, and indirect outcomes, thus hindering an evidence-based recommendation.
The evidence for the effectiveness of Aedes control measures is mixed. Chemical control, which is commonly used, does not appear to be associated with sustainable reductions of mosquito populations over time. Indeed, by contributing to a false sense of security, chemical control may reduce the effectiveness of educational interventions aimed at encouraging local people to remove mosquito breeding sites. Better quality studies of the impact of vector control interventions on the incidence of human infections with Dengue or Zika are still needed.
人们对控制寨卡病毒和登革热病媒的有效措施重新产生了兴趣。有必要对已发表的文献进行综合分析,重点关注证据质量,以确定病媒控制策略的有效性。
我们进行了一项元综述,评估任何伊蚊控制措施的有效性。我们在Scopus和Medline数据库中检索了截至2016年5月的相关综述。由两位作者独立评估标题、摘要和全文是否纳入。数据提取进行了两次,并使用GRADE标准评估证据的有效性。
纳入了13项系统综述,这些综述研究了控制措施对昆虫学参数或疾病发病率的影响。生物防治似乎比化学防治能更好地降低昆虫学指标,而教育活动可以减少繁殖栖息地。综合病媒控制策略不一定总能提高有效性。任何控制方案的效果取决于当地环境、干预类型、资源和研究持续时间,这可能部分解释了不同研究之间成功程度的差异。然而,由于研究设计、观察方法、异质性和间接结果的报告不佳,证据质量大多为低到极低,从而阻碍了基于证据的建议。
伊蚊控制措施有效性的证据好坏参半。常用的化学防治似乎并未随着时间的推移带来蚊虫数量的可持续减少。事实上,化学防治可能会营造一种虚假的安全感,从而降低旨在鼓励当地居民清除蚊虫繁殖地的教育干预措施的效果。仍需要对病媒控制干预措施对登革热或寨卡病毒人类感染发病率影响的高质量研究。