| Literature DB >> 26979847 |
Li-Ying Wang1, Wei-Ping Wu2, Qing Fu1, Ya-Yi Guan1, Shuai Han1, Yan-Lin Niu1, Su-Xiang Tong3, Israyil Osman3, Song Zhang3, Kaisar Kaisar4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Kashi Prefecture of Xinjiang is one of the most seriously affected areas with anthroponotic visceral leishmaniasis in China. A better understanding of space distribution features in this area was needed to guide strategies to eliminate visceral leishmaniasis from highly endemic areas. We performed a spatial analysis using the data collected in Bosh Klum Township in Xinjiang China.Entities:
Keywords: Familial aggregation; Spatial aggregation; Visceral leishmaniasis; Xinjiang, China
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26979847 PMCID: PMC4791776 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-016-1430-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Fig. 1The map of study area. Red arrow and rectangle show the study area with respect to China
Frequency distribution of the number of cases in the families
| Number of cases | Population of families | Total | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 13 | ||
| 0 | 27 | 49 | 80 | 98 | 145 | 88 | 47 | 18 | 16 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 573 |
| 1 | 0 | 5 | 8 | 23 | 42 | 23 | 16 | 3 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 129 |
| 2 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 12 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 36 | |
| 3 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | ||
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | |||
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||
| 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||||
| 12 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||||
| 13 | 0 | ||||||||||||
| Number of households | 27 | 54 | 91 | 129 | 204 | 119 | 68 | 24 | 26 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 751 |
Goodness-of-fit test of binomial distribution for VL cases in families
| Number of cases in households | Actual number of households | Theory number of households |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 573 | 542.585 |
| 1 | 129 | 177.934 |
| 2 | 36 | 27.588 |
| 3 | 11 | 2.694 |
| ≥4 | 2 | 0.189 |
| Df | 2 | |
| χ2 | 53.230 | |
|
|
| |
The distribution of families with VL patients by runs test
| Group number | Number of families with patient | Total households | Z-value |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 6 | 20 | −2.156 | 0.031 |
| A2 | 10 | 24 | −2.221 | 0.026 |
| A3 | 10 | 28 | −2.675 | 0.007 |
| A4 | 18 | 45 | −3.176 | 0.001 |
| A6 | 16 | 37 | −2.264 | 0.024 |
| A7 | 9 | 23 | −2.45 | 0.014 |
| A8 | 9 | 20 | −2.043 | 0.041 |
| C1 | 17 | 64 | −2.261 | 0.024 |
| C2 | 10 | 46 | −2.282 | 0.022 |
| C7 | 8 | 26 | −2.166 | 0.030 |
Note: This table only listed groups which had more than 5 families with a patient, where A, B and C denotes the 1th village, the 18th village and 20th village, respectively
The Scan statistical analysis for VL in spatial distribution
| Typical area of aggregation | The center coordinates | Radius (km) | Relative risk (RR) | Logarithm-likelihood ratio |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Longitude | Latitude | |||||
| A | 76.153447 | 39.528477 | 1.11 | 1.95 | 5.6341 | 0.028 |
| B | 76.111968 | 39.531895 | 0.54 | 1.82 | 7.1678 | 0.005 |
| C | 76.195427 | 39.563835 | 0.68 | 1.31 | 5.7424 | 0.017 |
Fig. 2Mark of VL spatial cluster and accumulation area. Red points symbolize families with VL patients and green points symbolize families without VL patients. Yellow lines symbolize the road in villages. Zone A,B,C shows the high risk areas of VL. The bigger the calculated spatial aggregation area is, the stronger the aggregation is