02957nas a2200217   4500000000100000008004100001653001100042653001900053653001900072100001300091700001400104700002200118700001200140700001500152245009300167856009900260300001300359490000700372520234600379022001402725       2019                            d10aDengue10aDengue control10aVector control1 aBuhler C1 aWinkler V1 aRunge-Ranzinger S1 aBoyce R1 aHorstick O00aEnvironmental methods for dengue vector control - A systematic review and meta-analysis.  uhttps://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0007420&type=printable  ae00074200 v133 a<p><strong>BACKGROUND: </strong>Vector control remains the primary method to prevent dengue infections. Environmental interventions represent sustainable and safe methods as there are limited risks of environmental contamination and toxicity. The objective of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the following environmental methods for dengue vector control.</p>

<p><strong>METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: </strong>Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature search was conducted using the databases PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, the Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. Quality assessment was done using the CONSORT 2010 checklist. For the meta-analysis the difference-in-differences (DID) and the difference-of-endlines (DOE) were calculated according to the Schmidt-Hunter method for the Breteau index (BI) and the pupae per person index (PPI). Nineteen studies were eligible for the systematic review, sixteen contributed data to the meta-analysis. The following methods were evaluated: (a) container covers with and without insecticides, (b) waste management and clean-up campaigns, and (c) elimination of breeding sites by rendering potential mosquito breeding sites unusable or by eliminating them. Study quality was highest for container covers with insecticides, followed by waste management without direct garbage collection and elimination of breeding places. Both, systematic review and meta-analysis, showed a weak effect of the interventions on larval populations, with no obvious differences between the results of each individual method. For the meta-analysis, both, container covers without insecticides (BI: DID -7.9, DOE -5) and waste management with direct garbage collection (BI: DID -8.83, DOE -6.2) achieved the strongest reductions for the BI, whereas for the PPI results were almost opposite, with container covers with insecticides (PPI: DID -0.83, DOE 0.09) and elimination of breeding places (PPI: DID -0.95, DOE -0.83) showing the strongest effects.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>Each of the investigated environmental methods showed some effectiveness in reducing larval and pupal densities of Aedes sp. mosquitoes. However, there is a need for more comparable high-quality studies at an adequate standard to strengthen this evidence.</p>
  a1935-2735