Overview

Aedes-borne diseases such as dengue, Zika, and chikungunya continue to be a global public health concern. With few licensed vaccines and no specific antivirals, vector control remains the main line of prevention. Yet, the epidemiological evidence behind these interventions has never been compared systematically across the full range of control methods and study designs. This dashboard summarises and visualises the findings of a living systematic review and meta-analysis of Aedes vector control.

Methodology

The living systematic review is reported in line with the PRISMA guidelines for living reviews (PRISMA-LSR) and prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251060653).

EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from database inception to 6 June 2025 (current iteration). Only English-language publications were included. Reference lists of eligible studies and relevant reviews were screened by hand to supplement the database searches. The search combined four concepts: (i) epidemiological outcomes, (ii) study design, (iii) Aedes-borne diseases (including dengue, Zika, chikungunya, yellow fever, and West Nile), and (iv) vector control strategies. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for randomised trials and ROBINS-I for non-randomised studies. Certainty of evidence for each intervention-outcome comparison was rated using the GRADE framework. Meta-analyses were done using random-effects models with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation and the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) adjustment.

Automated monitoring runs across all included databases. Searches are updated every six months, with new records screened, extracted, and analysed within two months of each update. The manuscript reporting the first iteration of results is currently under review. Further methodological detail will be made available once it is published.

Contributors