Volume 27, Number 9—September 2021
Research
Geographically Targeted Interventions versus Mass Drug Administration to Control Taenia solium Cysticercosis, Peru
Table 5
Study arm | No. taeniasis cases | No. stool samples tested | Prevalence, % |
|
---|---|---|---|---|
Crude | Adjusted* (95% CI) | |||
Ring screening | ||||
Pig treatment | 3 | 1,155 | 0.26 | 0.32 (0.07–1.45) |
No pig treatment |
14 |
1,194 |
1.17 |
0.89 (0.22–3.56) |
Ring treatment | ||||
Pig treatment | 14 | 1,107 | 1.26 | 0.55 (0.09–3.23) |
No pig treatment |
15 |
1,099 |
1.36 |
1.54 (0.37–6.51) |
Mass treatment | ||||
Pig treatment | 4 | 992 | 0.40 | 0.69 (0.16–2.86) |
No pig treatment | 4 | 985 | 0.41 | 0.46 (0.09–2.33) |
*Adjusted for number of pigs in the village, baseline village seroprevalence, participant age, and the clustered study design.
Page created: June 28, 2021
Page updated: August 17, 2021
Page reviewed: August 17, 2021
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.