Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Environmental management for dengue control: a systematic review protocol

      protocol

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Dengue is among the most important mosquito-borne diseases, with more than half of the world’s population at risk of infection in dengue endemic countries. Environmental management, which includes any activities that involve environmental modification, environmental manipulation and changes to human behaviour have been used to mitigate the risk of dengue transmission. In this protocol, we will integrate the data from various sources to assess the overall effect of environmental management on the incidence of dengue and other entomological indices.

          Methods and analyses

          We will conduct a systematic review of intervention that assess the effect of environmental management on the incidence of dengue and/or entomological indices. We will include any studies that include intervention through environmental management for dengue control, involving environmental modification, environmental manipulation and changes to human behaviour. A comprehensive search will be performed in electronic databases PUBMED, CENTRAL, SCOPUS, Web of Science and relevant research websites such as PROPSERO, WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify studies that meet our inclusion criteria. A systematic approach to searching, screening, reviewing and data extraction will be applied based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis. Titles, abstract, keywords for eligibility will be examined independently by researchers. The quality of the included studies will be assessed using quality assessment tool for studies with diverse design and Cochrane risk of bias tool. The characteristics of the selected articles will be described based on the study design, types of intervention and outcomes of the study in various countries. These include the types of environmental management intervention methods and the effectiveness of the intervention in reducing dengue cases or incidence and impact on entomological indices.

          Ethics and dissemination

          We will register this systematic review with the National Medical Research Register, Ministry of Health Malaysia. This protocol also had been registered with the PROSPERO. No ethical approval is necessary, as there will be no collection of primary data. The results will be disseminated though a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentation.

          Trial registration number

          CRD42018092189.

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Is Dengue Vector Control Deficient in Effectiveness or Evidence?: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

          Background Although a vaccine could be available as early as 2016, vector control remains the primary approach used to prevent dengue, the most common and widespread arbovirus of humans worldwide. We reviewed the evidence for effectiveness of vector control methods in reducing its transmission. Methodology/Principal Findings Studies of any design published since 1980 were included if they evaluated method(s) targeting Aedes aegypti or Ae. albopictus for at least 3 months. Primary outcome was dengue incidence. Following Cochrane and PRISMA Group guidelines, database searches yielded 960 reports, and 41 were eligible for inclusion, with 19 providing data for meta-analysis. Study duration ranged from 5 months to 10 years. Studies evaluating multiple tools/approaches (23 records) were more common than single methods, while environmental management was the most common method (19 studies). Only 9/41 reports were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two out of 19 studies evaluating dengue incidence were RCTs, and neither reported any statistically significant impact. No RCTs evaluated effectiveness of insecticide space-spraying (fogging) against dengue. Based on meta-analyses, house screening significantly reduced dengue risk, OR 0.22 (95% CI 0.05–0.93, p = 0.04), as did combining community-based environmental management and water container covers, OR 0.22 (95% CI 0.15–0.32, p 0.5), but insecticide aerosols (OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.44–2.86) and mosquito coils (OR 1.44; 95% CI 1.09–1.91) were associated with higher dengue risk (p = 0.01). Although 23/41 studies examined the impact of insecticide-based tools, only 9 evaluated the insecticide susceptibility status of the target vector population during the study. Conclusions/Significance This review and meta-analysis demonstrate the remarkable paucity of reliable evidence for the effectiveness of any dengue vector control method. Standardised studies of higher quality to evaluate and compare methods must be prioritised to optimise cost-effective dengue prevention.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Usefulness and applicability of the revised dengue case classification by disease: multi-centre study in 18 countries

            Background In view of the long term discussion on the appropriateness of the dengue classification into dengue fever (DF), dengue haemorrhagic fever (DHF) and dengue shock syndrome (DSS), the World Health Organization (WHO) has outlined in its new global dengue guidelines a revised classification into levels of severity: dengue fever with an intermediary group of "dengue fever with warning sings", and severe dengue. The objective of this paper was to compare the two classification systems regarding applicability in clinical practice and surveillance, as well as user-friendliness and acceptance by health staff. Methods A mix of quantitative (prospective and retrospective review of medical charts by expert reviewers, formal staff interviews), semi-quantitative (open questions in staff interviews) and qualitative methods (focus group discussions) were used in 18 countries. Quality control of data collected was undertaken by external monitors. Results The applicability of the DF/DHF/DSS classification was limited, even when strict DHF criteria were not applied (13.7% of dengue cases could not be classified using the DF/DHF/DSS classification by experienced reviewers, compared to only 1.6% with the revised classification). The fact that some severe dengue cases could not be classified in the DF/DHF/DSS system was of particular concern. Both acceptance and perceived user-friendliness of the revised system were high, particularly in relation to triage and case management. The applicability of the revised classification to retrospective data sets (of importance for dengue surveillance) was also favourable. However, the need for training, dissemination and further research on the warning signs was highlighted. Conclusions The revised dengue classification has a high potential for facilitating dengue case management and surveillance.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              What do community-based dengue control programmes achieve? A systematic review of published evaluations.

              Owing to increased epidemic activity and difficulties in controlling the insect vector, dengue has become a major public health problem in many parts of the tropics. The objective of this review is to analyse evidence regarding the achievements of community-based dengue control programmes. Medline, EMBASE, WHOLIS and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched (all to March 2005) to identify potentially relevant articles using keywords such as 'Aedes', 'dengue', 'breeding habits', 'housing' and 'community intervention'. According to the evaluation criteria recommended by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group, only studies that met the inclusion criteria of randomised controlled trials (RCT), controlled clinical trials (CCT), controlled before and after trials (CBA) or interrupted time series (ITS) were included. Eleven of 1091 studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, two were RCTs, six were CBAs and three were ITS. The selected studies varied widely with respect to target groups, intervention procedures and outcome measurements. Six studies combined community participation programmes with dengue control tools. Methodological weaknesses were found in all studies: only two papers reported confidence intervals (95% CI); five studies reported P-values; two studies recognised the importance of water container productivity as a measure for vector density; in no study was cluster randomisation attempted; and in no study were costs and sustainability assessed. Evidence that community-based dengue control programmes alone and in combination with other control activities can enhance the effectiveness of dengue control programmes is weak.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2019
                15 May 2019
                : 9
                : 5
                : e026101
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentCenter for Communicable Disease Research , Institute for Public Health, Malaysia , Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia
                [2 ] Environmental Health Institute, (WHO Collaboration Center for Reference and Research of Arbovirus and Their Associated Vectors) National Environment Agency, Singapore , Singapore, Singapore
                [3 ] Institute for Public Health , Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Mohd Amierul Fikri Mahmud; amierulfikri@ 123456gmail.com
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2750-5792
                Article
                bmjopen-2018-026101
                10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026101
                6530300
                31097485
                7cba44f5-3987-4230-b411-fffe40cf6554
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 17 August 2018
                : 15 January 2019
                : 08 March 2019
                Categories
                Public Health
                Protocol
                1506
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                environmental management,dengue control,systematic review
                Medicine
                environmental management, dengue control, systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article