| Literature DB >> 24886630 |
Xing Zhao, Fei Chen, Zijian Feng, Xiaosong Li1, Xiao-Hua Zhou.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Malaria transmission is strongly determined by the environmental temperature and the environment is rarely constant. Therefore, mosquitoes and parasites are not only exposed to the mean temperature, but also to daily temperature variation. Recently, both theoretical and laboratory work has shown, in addition to mean temperatures, daily fluctuations in temperature can affect essential mosquito and parasite traits that determine malaria transmission intensity. However, so far there is no epidemiological evidence at the population level to this problem.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24886630 PMCID: PMC4050477 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-13-192
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Characteristics of the 30 study counties
| Ruili | 3,442 | 348.204 | 21.2 (17.7, 24.6) | 10.8 (7.7,14) | 26.53 (0, 43.03) | 73.0 (67, 80) |
| Tengchong | 9,255 | 246.049 | 20.4 (16, 24.5) | 10.7 (7.8, 13.8) | 17.80 (1, 24.7) | 65.0 (54, 77) |
| Gongshan | 300 | 136.897 | 6.7 (1.4,12.3) | 10.8 (8, 13.8) | 12.29 (2, 17.63) | 69.6 (61, 80) |
| Fugong | 455 | 80.657 | 12.3 (7.1, 17.7) | 12.4 (9, 15.9) | 16.59 (2, 27.85) | 67.6 (58, 78) |
| Mengla | 1,203 | 79.980 | 22.0 (18.9, 25.1) | 11.3 (8.2,14.1) | 28.02 (0, 41.83) | 80.6 (77, 85) |
| Cangyuan | 859 | 65.931 | 19.8 (16, 23.4) | 12.3 (8.5, 16.3) | 23.63 (0, 37.93) | 72.4 (65, 81) |
| Menglian | 735 | 55.274 | 20 (16.6, 23.1) | 12.2 (8.4, 16.1) | 32.56 (0, 51.6) | 75.3 (70, 82) |
| Jinping | 966 | 47.375 | 16.5 (12.7, 20.7) | 7.3 (4.6, 9.6) | 28.95 (2.25, 40.35) | 84.8 (81, 91) |
| Longyang | 1,976 | 37.041 | 16.6 (12.1, 20.7) | 11.2 (7.9, 14.6) | 17.94 (0.08, 27.23) | 73.1 (66, 81) |
| Congjiang | 688 | 34.928 | 19 (12.3, 25.7) | 8.7 (5.1, 11.9) | 22.03 (0.7, 33.8) | 78.6 (73, 84) |
| Jiangcheng | 142 | 22.283 | 19.1 (15.7, 22.4) | 9.9 (6.7, 13) | 41.89 (0.38, 69.28) | 79.2 (76, 84) |
| Menghai | 420 | 21.036 | 22.8 (19.8, 25.6) | 11.8 (8.6, 14.5) | 23.17 (0, 38.63) | 77.4 (72, 84) |
| Weixi | 174 | 18.725 | 7.0 (1.6, 12.8) | 12.5 (7.9, 16.7) | 11.76 (0, 17.93) | 65.9 (58, 74) |
| Shuangjiang | 113 | 10.580 | 18.3 (14.6, 21.6) | 11.3 (7.8, 14.9) | 21.22 (0.08, 32.63) | 67.6 (59, 77) |
| Simao | 119 | 8.132 | 19.3 (16.2, 22.3) | 10.2 (7.2, 13.1) | 27.18 (0, 43.8) | 75.9 (71, 83) |
| Mojiang | 173 | 7.565 | 24.1 (20.1, 28.1) | 11.6 (8.4, 14.3) | 15.40 (0, 21.4) | 66.6 (59, 75) |
| Jingdong | 166 | 7.382 | 19 (14.6, 23.1) | 12.4 (8.3, 16.6) | 22.21 (0.38, 31.23) | 74.7 (70, 82) |
| Dechang | 86 | 7.335 | 17.6 (13.1, 22.2) | 11.4 (8.5, 14.4) | 18.39 (0, 28.1) | 59.3 (50, 71) |
| Gejiu | 156 | 5.535 | 19.5 (16.1, 23.2) | 8.7 (6.7, 10.6) | 15.90 (0, 21.18) | 68.3 (63, 75) |
| Dushan | 102 | 4.984 | 15.6 (9.7, 22) | 7.3 (4.6, 9.5) | 23.94 (1.5, 32.68) | 79.4 (73, 88) |
| Changshun | 53 | 3.598 | 16.4 (10.3, 22.6) | 8.1 (5.1, 10.5) | 22.30 (1.48, 29.1) | 77.5 (72, 84) |
| Liping | 75 | 2.522 | 16.3 (9.2, 23.8) | 7.8 (4.3, 10.9) | 23.68 (1.9, 33.33) | 81.3 (74, 90) |
| Wenshan | 64 | 2.325 | 16.5 (12.9, 20.6) | 9.6 (6.8, 12.1) | 17.64 (0.5, 26.03) | 78.3 (74, 85) |
| Wangmo | 29 | 1.609 | 20.0 (14.8, 25.6) | 9.1 (5.9, 11.8) | 22.43 (0.5, 26.43) | 73.2 (67, 80) |
| Guangnan | 74 | 1.575 | 17.5 (13.1, 22.4) | 10.0 (6.5, 13) | 16.98 (0.5, 23.8) | 76.8 (72, 84) |
| Weishan | 28 | 1.482 | 15.5 (11.5, 19.5) | 10.6 (8.2, 13.1) | 20.37 (0, 33.28) | 66.2 (55, 78) |
| Nanhua | 19 | 1.318 | 16.5 (12.3, 20.5) | 10.4 (7.6, 13.1) | 15.66 (0, 24.08) | 68.2 (59, 80) |
| Weng’an | 32 | 1.263 | 15.9 (9.1, 22.8) | 7.3 (3.8, 10.1) | 19.65 (2.6, 27.85) | 77.1 (71, 85) |
| Eshan | 11 | 1.156 | 16.4(12.3, 20.3) | 10.8 (7.8, 13.8) | 16.23 (0, 23.63) | 72.6 (67, 81) |
| Huili | 29 | 1.089 | 15.6 (10.7, 20.3) | 11.9 (8.2, 15.9) | 21.53 (0, 27.95) | 68.0 (60, 77) |
☆: weekly mean, and the two values in the parenthesis are 25% and 75% percentiles, respectively.
☆☆: weekly total, and the two values in the parenthesis are 25% and 75% percentiles, respectively.
Figure 1Box plot comparison of meteorological variables between four diurnal temperature range levels. The dark line in the middle of the boxes is the median value; the bottom and top of the boxes indicates the 25th and 75th percentile, respectively; whiskers represents 1.5 times the height of the box; and dots with numbers represent value of outlier cases.
The estimate of the main effect of diurnal temperature range levels
| −0.127 | 0.419 | −0.949 | 0.695 | |
| 0.489 | 0.297 | −0.093 | 1.071 | |
| −0.494 | 0.302 | −1.086 | 0.099 | |
Figure 2The estimates of non-linear patterns between mean temperatures and malaria incidences, with three to ten weeks being the lag range of temperatures. The Y-axis represents the logarithm value of the relative risk ratio compared to the reference temperature 0°C. The solid line is the estimated non-linear curve, with dashed lines indicating its 95% confidence interval. On the one hand, A, B, C, D show the scenario for the fourth week lag; E, F, G, H show the scenario for the sixth week lag; and I, J, K, L show the scenario for the eighth week lag. On the other hand, A, E, I are at the first (lowest) DTR level; B, F, J are at the second DTR level; C, G, K are at the third DTR level; and D, H, L are at the fourth (highest) DTR level. The range of X-axis depends on the corresponding range of mean temperatures.