Suppr超能文献

评估蚊帐损坏情况:三种测量方法比较,用于估计蚊帐上的孔的大小、形状和分布。

Assessing bed net damage: comparisons of three measurement methods for estimating the size, shape, and distribution of holes on bed nets.

机构信息

Malaria Branch, Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA, 30329, USA.

Malaria Alert Centre, University of Malawi College of Medicine, Blantyre, Malawi.

出版信息

Malar J. 2017 Oct 10;16(1):405. doi: 10.1186/s12936-017-2049-8.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Measuring the physical condition of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) under field conditions is of great importance for malaria control programmes to guide decisions on how frequently to replace LLINs. Current guidelines by the World Health Organization Pesticide Evaluation Scheme (WHOPES) propose a proportionate hole index (pHI) for assessing LLIN condition by counting the number of holes the size of a thumb, fist, head, and larger than a head. However, this method does not account for irregular hole shapes or exact hole sizes which could result in inaccurate decisions about when to replace LLINs.

METHODS

LLINs were collected during a 2013 health facility-based malaria case control study in Machinga District, Malawi. To evaluate the accuracy of the pHI, the physical condition of 277 LLINs was estimated by the WHOPES method and then compared with two more thorough measurement methods: image analysis of digital photographs of each LLIN side; and for 10 nets, ruler measurements of the length, width, and location of each hole. Total hole counts and areas per net were estimated by each method, and detailed results of hole shapes and composite pictures of hole locations were generated using image analysis.

RESULTS

The WHOPES method and image analysis resulted in similar estimates of total hole counts, each with a median of 10 (inter-quartile range (IQR) 4-24 and 4-23, respectively; p = 0.004); however, estimated hole areas were significantly larger using the WHOPES method (median 162 cm, IQR 28-793) than image analysis (median 13 cm, IQR 3-101; p < 0.0001). The WHOPES method classified fewer LLINs in 'good condition' compared to image analysis (42% vs 74%). The ruler method detected significantly more holes than image analysis did (p = 0.002) in 10 LLINs; however, total hole area was not significantly different (p = 0.16). Most holes were not circular but roughly 2-5 times longer in one direction. The lower quarter of LLIN sides was found to have the most holes.

CONCLUSIONS

The WHOPES method overestimated total hole area, likely because holes are elongated rather than circular, suggesting further adjustments to the pHI formula may be warranted when considering LLIN replacement strategies.

摘要

背景

在现场条件下测量长效杀虫蚊帐(LLINs)的物理状况对于疟疾控制规划非常重要,可以指导关于应多久更换一次 LLINs 的决策。世界卫生组织杀虫剂评价方案(WHOPES)的现行指南提出了比例性孔指数(pHI),通过计算拇指大小、拳头大小、头部大小和大于头部大小的孔数来评估 LLIN 的状况。然而,这种方法没有考虑到不规则的孔形状或确切的孔大小,这可能导致在何时更换 LLINs 方面做出不准确的决策。

方法

在 2013 年马拉维马钦加区基于卫生机构的疟疾病例对照研究期间收集了 LLINs。为了评估 pHI 的准确性,用 WHOPES 方法估计了 277 个 LLIN 的物理状况,然后将其与两种更彻底的测量方法进行了比较:对每个 LLIN 两侧的数字照片进行图像分析;对于 10 个蚊帐,用尺子测量每个孔的长度、宽度和位置。用每种方法估计了总孔数和每个网的面积,并使用图像分析生成了孔形状的详细结果和孔位置的组合图片。

结果

WHOPES 方法和图像分析得出的总孔数估计结果相似,分别为 10(中位数,四分位距(IQR)4-24 和 4-23;p = 0.004);然而,WHOPES 方法估计的孔面积明显大于图像分析(中位数 162cm,IQR 28-793)(p<0.0001)。与图像分析相比,WHOPES 方法将更少的 LLINs 归类为“良好状态”(42% 对 74%)。在 10 个 LLINs 中,尺子法检测到的孔数明显多于图像分析(p=0.002);然而,总孔面积没有显著差异(p=0.16)。大多数孔不是圆形的,而是在一个方向上大约拉长了 2-5 倍。发现 LLIN 侧面的下四分之一有最多的孔。

结论

WHOPES 方法高估了总孔面积,可能是因为孔是拉长的而不是圆形的,这表明在考虑更换 LLINs 的策略时,可能需要对 pHI 公式进行进一步调整。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/becf/5635507/876f16baffde/12936_2017_2049_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验