Epidemiology of spider mite sensitivity: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Table 4 Studies reporting monosensitization

Study	Monosensitized prevalence (%) [95% CI]			% Weight	Country	Sample size
Tetranychus urticae
Astarita et al. [34]	74.0	61.0	87.0	2.26	Italy	46^f,a
Astarita et al. [35]	2.1	1.0	3.0	10.23	Italy	960^f,a
Jee et al. [29]	2.0	− 2.0	6.0	7.79	Korea	50^npo
Jeebhay et al. [28]	6.0	2.0	9.0	8.35	South Africa	190^f,a
Kim et al. [25]	8.6	6.0	11.0	9.10	Korea	465^f,nao,a
Kim et al. [24]	0.7	0.0	1.0	10.39	Korea	1806^u
Kronqvist et al. [21]	11.0	5.0	18.0	5.45	Sweden	96^f,a
Lee et al. [20]	5.0	5.0	6.0	10.36	Korea	7182^c,a
Navarro et al. [16]	7.0	3.0	10.0	8.53	Spain	241^f,a
Sub-total
D + L pooled prevalence	7.0	5.0	10.0	72.6		11,036
I–V pooled prevalence	2.0	2.0	3.0
Panonychus citri
Kim et al. [8]	8.8	7.0	10.0	10.00	Korea	1629^nco,c
Kim et al. [9]	9.9	6.0	14.0	7.31	Korea	181^f,a
Lee et al. [19]	2.2	1.0	3.0	10.24	Korea	1037^nco,c
Sub-total
D + L pooled prevalence	7.0	1.0	12.0	27.54		2847
I–V pooled prevalence	4.0	4.0	5.0
Overall
D + L pooled prevalence	7.0	5.0	9.0	100		13,883
I–V pooled prevalence	3.0	2.0	3.0

Populations considered in these studies: f, farmers (either outdoor or greenhouse workers); naf, living near apple farms; nco, living near citrus orchards; npo, living near pear orchards; r, rural (unspecified adjacency to specific crop types); u, urban; c, children; a, adults

ISSN: 2045-7022