The impact of mosquito sampling strategies on molecular xenomonitoring prevalence for filariasis: a systematic review.

IF 8.4 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Bulletin of the World Health Organization Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-08 DOI:10.2471/BLT.23.290424
Lisa J Reimer, Joseph D Pryce
{"title":"The impact of mosquito sampling strategies on molecular xenomonitoring prevalence for filariasis: a systematic review.","authors":"Lisa J Reimer, Joseph D Pryce","doi":"10.2471/BLT.23.290424","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore the impact of mosquito collection methods, sampling intensity and target genus on molecular xenomonitoring detection of parasites causing lymphatic filariasis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched five databases for studies that used two or more collection strategies for sampling wild mosquitoes, and employed molecular methods to assess the molecular xenomonitoring prevalence of parasites responsible for lymphatic filariasis. We performed generic inverse variance meta-analyses and explored sources of heterogeneity using subgroup analyses. We assessed methodological quality and certainty of evidence.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>We identified 25 eligible studies, with 172 083 mosquitoes analysed. We observed significantly higher molecular xenomonitoring prevalence with collection methods that target bloodfed mosquitoes compared to methods that target unfed mosquitoes (prevalence ratio: 3.53; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.52-8.24), but no significant difference compared with gravid collection methods (prevalence ratio: 1.54; 95% CI: 0.46-5.16). Regarding genus, we observed significantly higher molecular xenomonitoring prevalence for anopheline mosquitoes compared to culicine mosquitoes in areas where <i>Anopheles</i> species are the primary vector (prevalence ratio: 6.91; 95% CI: 1.73-27.52). One study provided evidence that reducing the number of sampling sites did not significantly affect molecular xenomonitoring prevalence. Evidence of differences in molecular xenomonitoring prevalence between sampling strategies was considered to be of low certainty, due partly to inherent limitations of observational studies that were not explicitly designed for these comparisons.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The choice of sampling strategy can significantly affect molecular xenomonitoring results. Further research is needed to inform the optimum strategy in light of logistical constraints and epidemiological contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":9465,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the World Health Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10898278/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of the World Health Organization","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.23.290424","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To explore the impact of mosquito collection methods, sampling intensity and target genus on molecular xenomonitoring detection of parasites causing lymphatic filariasis.

Methods: We systematically searched five databases for studies that used two or more collection strategies for sampling wild mosquitoes, and employed molecular methods to assess the molecular xenomonitoring prevalence of parasites responsible for lymphatic filariasis. We performed generic inverse variance meta-analyses and explored sources of heterogeneity using subgroup analyses. We assessed methodological quality and certainty of evidence.

Findings: We identified 25 eligible studies, with 172 083 mosquitoes analysed. We observed significantly higher molecular xenomonitoring prevalence with collection methods that target bloodfed mosquitoes compared to methods that target unfed mosquitoes (prevalence ratio: 3.53; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.52-8.24), but no significant difference compared with gravid collection methods (prevalence ratio: 1.54; 95% CI: 0.46-5.16). Regarding genus, we observed significantly higher molecular xenomonitoring prevalence for anopheline mosquitoes compared to culicine mosquitoes in areas where Anopheles species are the primary vector (prevalence ratio: 6.91; 95% CI: 1.73-27.52). One study provided evidence that reducing the number of sampling sites did not significantly affect molecular xenomonitoring prevalence. Evidence of differences in molecular xenomonitoring prevalence between sampling strategies was considered to be of low certainty, due partly to inherent limitations of observational studies that were not explicitly designed for these comparisons.

Conclusion: The choice of sampling strategy can significantly affect molecular xenomonitoring results. Further research is needed to inform the optimum strategy in light of logistical constraints and epidemiological contexts.

蚊子采样策略对丝虫病分子异种监测流行率的影响:系统综述。
目的探讨蚊子采集方法、采样强度和目标蚊属对分子异种监测检测淋巴丝虫病寄生虫的影响:我们在五个数据库中系统地搜索了使用两种或两种以上采集策略对野生蚊子进行采样,并采用分子方法评估淋巴丝虫病寄生虫分子异种监测流行率的研究。我们进行了一般反方差荟萃分析,并通过亚组分析探讨了异质性的来源。我们评估了方法学质量和证据的确定性:我们确定了 25 项符合条件的研究,分析了 172 083 只蚊子。我们观察到,以吸血蚊子为目标的采集方法与以未吸血蚊子为目标的采集方法相比,分子异种监测流行率明显更高(流行率比:3.53;95%置信区间:1.52-8.24),但与胎蚊采集方法相比,没有明显差异(流行率比:1.54;95%置信区间:0.46-5.16)。关于蚊属,我们观察到,在按蚊是主要病媒的地区,按蚊的分子异种监测流行率明显高于食蚊(流行率比:6.91;95% CI:1.73-27.52)。一项研究提供的证据表明,减少采样点的数量并不会对分子异种监测流行率产生重大影响。不同取样策略在分子异种监测流行率方面存在差异的证据被认为确定性较低,部分原因是观察性研究存在固有的局限性,没有明确设计这些比较:结论:取样策略的选择会对分子异种监测结果产生重大影响。结论:采样策略的选择会对分子异种监测结果产生重大影响,需要进一步研究,以便根据后勤限制和流行病学背景确定最佳策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Bulletin of the World Health Organization
Bulletin of the World Health Organization 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
11.50
自引率
0.90%
发文量
317
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Bulletin of the World Health Organization Journal Overview: Leading public health journal Peer-reviewed monthly journal Special focus on developing countries Global scope and authority Top public and environmental health journal Impact factor of 6.818 (2018), according to Web of Science ranking Audience: Essential reading for public health decision-makers and researchers Provides blend of research, well-informed opinion, and news
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信