MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fly control to prevent diarrhoea in children

2018· review· en· W2903711653 on OpenAlexaff
Jai K Das, Yousaf Hadi, Rehana A Salam, Mehar Hoda, Zohra S Lassi, Zulfiqar A Bhutta

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForensic Entomology and Diptera Studies
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCochrane LibraryCINAHLMEDLINEIncidence (geometry)HouseflyRandomized controlled trialPediatricsEnvironmental healthSurgeryPsychological interventionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Diarrhoeal disease accounts for millions of child deaths every year. Although the role of flies as vectors of infectious diarrhoea has been established, fly control is not often mentioned as an approach to decrease childhood diarrhoea. Theoretically, fly control for decreasing diarrhoea incidence can be achieved by intervening at four different levels: reduction or elimination of fly breeding sites; reduction of sources that attract houseflies; prevention of contact between flies and disease-causing organisms; and protection of people, food, and food utensils from contact with flies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of various housefly control measures on the incidence of diarrhoea and its related morbidity and mortality in children under five years of age. SEARCH METHODS: We searched electronic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and LILACS, from database inception to 24 May 2018. We also searched trial registries for relevant grey literature and ongoing trials. We checked the references of the identified studies and reviews. We did not apply any filters for language, publication status (published, unpublished, in press, and ongoing), or publication date. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and controlled before-and-after studies that studied the effect of fly control on diarrhoea in children under five years of age. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted the data and independently assessed the risk of bias in the included study. We planned to contact study authors for additional information, where necessary. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included one cluster-RCT (491 participants) conducted in Pakistan that evaluated insecticide spraying in the first two years and baited fly traps in the third year. Insecticide spraying reduced the fly population (house index) in the intervention group during the four months of the year when both flies and cases of diarrhoea were more common, but not at other times. On average, this was associated with a reduction in the incidence of diarrhoea in the first year (illustrative mean episodes per child-year in the intervention group was 6.3 while in the control group was 7.1) and second year of the intervention (illustrative mean episodes per child‒year in the intervention group was 4.4 while in the control group was 6.5; rate ratio (RaR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 0.89, low-certainty evidence). In the third year of the intervention, the baited fly traps did not demonstrate an effect on the fly population or on diarrhoea incidence (RaR 1.15, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.47, low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The trial, conducted in a setting where there were clear seasonal peaks in fly numbers and associated diarrhoea, shows insecticide spraying may reduce diarrhoea in children. Further research on whether this finding is applicable to other setting is required, as well as work on other fly control methods, their effects, feasibility, costs, and acceptability.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicForensic Entomology and Diptera StudiesFrench-language works237,207