The Comparative Effectiveness of Vector Control Approaches for Dengue: A Systematic Review and Multilevel Network Meta-Analysis.

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Gary K K Low, Yuling Ke, Emmanuel Samson, Prutha Rane, Olaf Horstick, Carlos Alberto Montenegro-Quiñonez
{"title":"The Comparative Effectiveness of Vector Control Approaches for Dengue: A Systematic Review and Multilevel Network Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Gary K K Low, Yuling Ke, Emmanuel Samson, Prutha Rane, Olaf Horstick, Carlos Alberto Montenegro-Quiñonez","doi":"10.1111/tmi.70213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Dengue vector control plays an important role in reducing the burden of dengue infection. Conventional meta-analysis can only include interventions that can be directly compared. Hence, this study aimed to compare the effectiveness of all interventions for dengue vector control directly and indirectly through a multilevel Bayesian network meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cluster randomised controlled trials (cRCTs) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Screening and full-text review were performed independently by two reviewers, with resolution by a third reviewer if there was disagreement. Outcomes measured for the included studies considered were entomological indices and epidemiological measures. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the quality of the studies by two independent reviewers, with a third reviewer to resolve any discrepancies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 48 cRCTs and 13 RCTs were included in this study. The quality of cRCTs and RCTs was overall deemed at high risk of bias except for two studies with low risk of bias. The network meta-analyses and narrative synthesis indicate that most interventions are not significantly superior to one another. Despite the lack of statistically significant results in the network meta-analyses, a standalone intervention appears to be less effective than combined interventions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although most interventions were not found to be significantly superior to one another in the network meta-analyses, it is noteworthy that standalone interventions were shown to be less effective than combined interventions. These results reinforce the importance of promoting integrated, multi-faceted vector control strategies for dengue prevention.</p>","PeriodicalId":23962,"journal":{"name":"Tropical Medicine & International Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tropical Medicine & International Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/tmi.70213","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Dengue vector control plays an important role in reducing the burden of dengue infection. Conventional meta-analysis can only include interventions that can be directly compared. Hence, this study aimed to compare the effectiveness of all interventions for dengue vector control directly and indirectly through a multilevel Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Methods: Cluster randomised controlled trials (cRCTs) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Screening and full-text review were performed independently by two reviewers, with resolution by a third reviewer if there was disagreement. Outcomes measured for the included studies considered were entomological indices and epidemiological measures. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the quality of the studies by two independent reviewers, with a third reviewer to resolve any discrepancies.

Results: A total of 48 cRCTs and 13 RCTs were included in this study. The quality of cRCTs and RCTs was overall deemed at high risk of bias except for two studies with low risk of bias. The network meta-analyses and narrative synthesis indicate that most interventions are not significantly superior to one another. Despite the lack of statistically significant results in the network meta-analyses, a standalone intervention appears to be less effective than combined interventions.

Conclusions: Although most interventions were not found to be significantly superior to one another in the network meta-analyses, it is noteworthy that standalone interventions were shown to be less effective than combined interventions. These results reinforce the importance of promoting integrated, multi-faceted vector control strategies for dengue prevention.

登革热病媒控制方法的比较效果:系统综述和多层次网络荟萃分析。
背景:登革热媒介控制在减轻登革热感染负担方面起着重要作用。传统的荟萃分析只能包括可以直接比较的干预措施。因此,本研究旨在通过多层次贝叶斯网络荟萃分析,比较所有直接和间接控制登革热媒介的干预措施的有效性。方法:采用聚类随机对照试验(crct)和随机对照试验(RCTs)。筛选和全文审查由两名审稿人独立完成,如果有分歧,由第三名审稿人解决。纳入研究的测量结果包括昆虫学指标和流行病学指标。两位独立的审稿人使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具来评估研究的质量,第三位审稿人来解决任何差异。结果:本研究共纳入48组随机对照试验和13组随机对照试验。除了两项低偏倚风险的研究外,crct和rct的质量总体上被认为具有高偏倚风险。网络元分析和叙事综合表明,大多数干预措施并不显著优于其他干预措施。尽管在网络荟萃分析中缺乏统计上显著的结果,但单独干预似乎不如联合干预有效。结论:虽然在网络荟萃分析中没有发现大多数干预措施明显优于其他干预措施,但值得注意的是,单独干预措施的效果不如联合干预措施。这些结果加强了促进综合、多方面病媒控制战略对登革热预防的重要性。
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
Tropical Medicine & International Health
Tropical Medicine & International Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
129
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Tropical Medicine & International Health is published on behalf of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Foundation Tropical Medicine and International Health, Belgian Institute of Tropical Medicine and Bernhard-Nocht-Institute for Tropical Medicine. Tropical Medicine & International Health is the official journal of the Federation of European Societies for Tropical Medicine and International Health (FESTMIH).
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书