Background
Methods
Literature search strategy and study selection
Data extraction and risk of bias assessments
Data synthesis
Results
First author, year published | Country | Influenza strain | Interventionb | Percentage reductiona | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
R0 ≤ 1.9 | R0 = 2.0–2.4 | R0 ≥ 2.5 | ||||
Epidemiological studiesc | ||||||
Rousculp, 2010 [27] | USA | Seasonal influenza A(H3N2), 2007–2008 | Single | 20 | – | – |
Kumar, 2012 [28] | USA | 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic | Single | 36 | – | – |
Lee, 2010 [29] | Singapore | 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic | Multiple | 61 | – | – |
Modeling studies | ||||||
Timpka, 2016 [30] | Sweden | Future pandemic strain | Single | 12d | – | – |
Zhang, 2012 [31] | Singapore | Not reported | Single | 18 | – | – |
Mao, 2011 [32] | USA | Seasonal scenario (R0 = 1.4) and a pandemic scenario (R0 = 2.0) | Single | 82 | 23 | – |
Xia, 2013 [33] | China | 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic | Single | – | – | – |
Single + VAC | – | – | – | |||
Milne, 2008 [34] | Australia | Pandemic strain | Single | 28 | 13 | 7 |
Multiple | 94 | 96 | 95 | |||
Milne, 2013 [35] | Papua New Guinea | Pandemic strain | Multiple | 63e | – | – |
Miller, 2008 [36] | USA | Influenza A(H3N2) in population with no prior immunity | Multiple | 88 | – | – |
Andradottir, 2011 [37] | Canada | 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic | Multiple | 30 | – | – |
Multiple + VAC | 61 | – | – | |||
Multiple + AV | 73 | – | – | |||
Perlroth, 2010 [38] | USA | Not reported | Multiple | 77 | 38 | – |
Multiple + AV | 90 | 71 | – | |||
Halloran-Imperial/Pitt model, 2008 [39] | USA | Future pandemic strain | Multiple | 73 | – | – |
Multiple + AV | 83 | 70 | 53 | |||
Halloran-UW/LANL model, 2008 [39] | USA | Future pandemic strain | Multiple | 89 | – | – |
Multiple + AV | 94 | 92 | 86 | |||
Halloran-VBI model, 2008 [39] | USA | Future pandemic strain | Multiple | 72 | – | – |
Multiple + AV | 91 | 81 | 64 |
First author, year published | Outcome | Confounding | Selection | Intervention classification | Intervention deviations | Missing data | Outcome measurement | Reported results | Overall |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rousculp, 2010 [27] | Attend work with severe ILI | Moderatea | Low | Low | Low | Low | Moderateb | Seriousc | Serious |
Kumar, 2012 [28] | ILI | Seriousd | Low | Moderatee | Low | Moderatef | Moderateb | Low | Critical |
Lee, 2010 [29] | Seroconversion to 2009 influenza A(H1N1) | Seriousd | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Serious |
First author, year published | Interventiona | Threshold (%)b | Percentage reductionc | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
R0 ≤ 1.9 | R0 = 2.0–2.4 | R0 ≥ 2.5 | |||
Zhang, 2012 [31] | Single | 0.02 | 18 | – | – |
0.25 | 18 | – | – | ||
1.5 | 18 | – | – | ||
5.0 | 17 | – | – | ||
Halloran-Imperial/Pitt model, 2008 [39] | Multiple + AV | 0.0001 | 99 | 96 | 64 |
0.001 | 99 | 95 | 64 | ||
0.01 | 99 | 94 | 64 | ||
0.1 | 97 | 88 | 62 | ||
1.0 | 83 | 70 | 53 | ||
10.0 | 31 | 27 | 23 | ||
Halloran-UW/LANL model, 2008 [39] | Multiple + AV | 0.0001 | 99 | 99 | 99 |
0.001 | 99 | 99 | 99 | ||
0.01 | 99 | 99 | 99 | ||
0.1 | 99 | 99 | 98 | ||
1.0 | 94 | 92 | 86 | ||
10.0 | 57 | 54 | 47 | ||
Halloran-VBI model, 2008 [39] | Multiple + AV | 0.0001 | 96 | 89 | 67 |
0.001 | 96 | 89 | 67 | ||
0.01 | 96 | 89 | 67 | ||
0.1 | 96 | 88 | 66 | ||
1.0 | 91 | 81 | 64 | ||
10.0 | 55 | 49 | 50 | ||
Single | Prior to first case | 28 | – | – | |
2 weeks after 1st case | 27 | – | – | ||
4 weeks after 1st case | 25 | – | – | ||
6 weeks after 1st case | 19 | – | – | ||
Multiple | Prior to first case | 94 | – | 95 | |
2 weeks after 1st case | 94 | – | 89 | ||
4 weeks after 1st case | 86 | – | 29 | ||
6 weeks after 1st case | 73 | – | 1 | ||
Milne, 2013 [35] | Multiple | Immediately after 1st case | 63 | – | – |
2 weeks after 1st case | 63 | – | – | ||
4 weeks after 1st case | 48 | – | – |
First author, year published | Interventiona | Compliance (%) | Percentage reductionb | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
R0 ≤ 1.9 | R0 = 2.0–2.4 | R0 ≥ 2.5 | |||
Mao, 2011 [32] | Single | 100 | 82 | 23 | – |
90 | 61 | 20 | – | ||
75 | 41 | 16 | – | ||
50 | 22 | 9 | – | ||
Milne, 2008 [34] | Single | 100 | 28 | – | 7 |
90 | 26 | – | 7 | ||
75 | 25 | – | 5 | ||
50 | 17 | – | 2 |
First author, year published | Country | Influenza strain | Interventiona | Percentage reductionb | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
R0 ≤ 1.9 | R0 = 2.0–2.4 | R0 ≥ 2.5 | ||||
Zhang, 2012 [31] | Singapore | Not reported | Single | 28 | – | – |
Mao, 2011 [32] | USA | Seasonal scenario (R0 = 1.4) and a pandemic scenario (R0 = 2.0) | Single | 97 | 53 | – |
Xia, 2013 [33] | China | 2009 Influenza A(H1N1) pandemic | Single | 51 | – | – |
Single + VAC | 91 | – | – | |||
Milne, 2008 [34] | Australia | Pandemic strain | Single | 39 | 25 | 18 |
Multiple | 97 | 99 | 99 | |||
Milne, 2013 [35] | Papua New Guinea | Pandemic strain | Multiple | 91 | – | – |
First author, year published | Country | Influenza strain | Interventionb | Days to peak | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
R0 ≤ 1.9 | R0 = 2.0–2.4 | R0 ≥ 2.5 | ||||
Lee, 2010 [29] | Singapore | 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic | Multiple | Peak later (unspecified) with intervention | – | – |
Zhang, 2012 [31] | Singapore | Not reported | Single | Peak 1 day later with intervention | – | – |
Mao, 2011 [32] | USA | Seasonal scenario (R0 = 1.4) and a pandemic scenario (R0 = 2.0) | Single | Peak 89 days later with intervention | Peak 18 days later with intervention | – |
Xia, 2013 [33] | China | 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic | Single | Peak 6 days later with intervention | – | – |
Milne, 2013 [35] | Papua New Guinea | Pandemic strain | Multiple | Peak 13 days later with intervention | – | – |