Volume 13, Number 9—September 2007
Effect of Interventions on Influenza A (H9N2) Isolation in Hong Kong’s Live Poultry Markets, 1999–2005
|Adjusted RR||95% CI||p value||Adjusted RR||95% CI||p value|
|1 rest-day with quails||0.73||0.44–1.20||0.22||0.42||0.25–0.71||0.001|
|1 rest-day without quails||0.61||0.37–1.02||0.061||0.40||0.24–0.68||0.001|
|Proportion of chickens imported, per 10% increase
|Total sales of|
|Chicken per 100,000||1.09||1.01–1.17||0.02||1.08||0.99–1.18||0.07|
|Minor poultry per 100,000||2.98||1.52–5.87||0.002||3.20||1.42–7.22||0.005|
|Chicken × minor poultry,
|Relative humidity, %
|α (cosine component)||0.25||–0.21–0.71||0.29||–0.23||–0.75–0.29||0.38|
|β (sine component)||0.31||–0.19–0.81||0.23||0.72||0.13–1.30||0.02|
*RR, relative risk; CI, confidence interval; MEAT, market economic air treatment.
†The seasonality coefficients α and β contribute to the estimated isolation rate in week t via the terms αcos(2πt/52) + βsin(2πt/52).
Page created: July 01, 2010
Page updated: July 01, 2010
Page reviewed: July 01, 2010
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.