Skip to main content

Table 5 Completeness of the data of surveillance for echinococcosis by remote management system (RMS) vs manual management

From: A remote management system for control and surveillance of echinococcosis: design and implementation based on internet of things

Years Population prevalence Prevalence of children Positive rates of canine faeces Prevalence of livestock
Group A Group B Group A Group B Group A Group B Group A Group B
2012 9/4006 (0.22) / * / 6/320 (1.88) / 22/500 (1.7) /
2013 13/15 000 (0.09) / * / 40/2000 (2.00) / * /
2014 8/10 010 (0.08) / * / 38/2000 (1.90) / 13/1000(1.30) /
2015 6/5004 (0.12) / * / 41/2000 (2.05) / 12/1000(1.20) /
2016 5/10 000 (0.05) / * / 36/1500 (2.40) / 10/1000(1.00) /
2017 2/10 010 (0.02) / * / 32/1500 (2.13) / * /
2018 4/10 046 (0.04) / * / 25/1200 (2.08) / 7/994 (0.70) /
2019 4/8546(0.04) 0/300(0) 0/1446(0) 0/554(0) 25/663 (3.77) 4/1871 (0.21) 2/309 (0.65) 1/200 (0.5)
2020         
2021         
2022         
  1. Group A means manual deworming and management for dogs in the township and villages. Group B means smart deworming for dogs in some townships from 2019, and using the RMS to manage the monitoring data of echinococcosis within the county.*means the data were missed. /means the smart deworming and telemanagement had not started. means from 2019 to 2022, the data will be continuous, dynamic, accurate, real-time collected, analyed, and displayed by the RMS