Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2020 Feb 3;221(4):553-560.
doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiz372.

Interventions in Live Poultry Markets for the Control of Avian Influenza: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Naiyang Shi  1   2 , Jinxin Huang  1   2 , Xuefeng Zhang  3 , Changjun Bao  3 , Na Yue  1   2 , Qiang Wang  1 , Tingting Cui  1 , Mengyun Zheng  1 , Xiang Huo  3 , Hui Jin  1   2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Interventions in Live Poultry Markets for the Control of Avian Influenza: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Naiyang Shi et al. J Infect Dis. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Background: This review aimed to provide constructive suggestions for the control and management of avian influenza through quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the impact of different live poultry market (LPM) interventions.

Methods: Both English and Chinese language databases were searched for articles that were published on or before 9 November 2018. After extraction and assessment of the included literature, Stata14.0 was applied to perform a meta-analysis to explore the impacts of LPM interventions.

Results: A total of 19 studies were identified. In total, 224 human, 3550 poultry, and 13 773 environment samples were collected before the intervention; 181 people, 4519 poultry, and 9562 environments were sampled after LPM interventions. Avian influenza virus (AIV) detection rates in the LPM environment (odds ratio [OR], 0.393; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.262-0.589) and the incidence of AIV infection (OR, 0.045; 95% CI, 0.025-0.079) were significantly lower after LPM interventions, while interventions were not significantly effective in reducing AIV detection in poultry samples (OR, 0.803; 95% CI, 0.403-1.597).

Conclusions: LPM interventions can reduce AIV human infections and the detection rate of AIV in market environments.

Keywords: avian influenza virus; live poultry market; live poultry market interventions; meta-analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types