Skip to main content

Table 4 Studies reporting monosensitization

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

Study Monosensitized prevalence (%) [95% CI] % Weight Country Sample size
Tetranychus urticae
Astarita et al. [34] 74.0 61.0 87.0 2.26 Italy 46f,a
Astarita et al. [35] 2.1 1.0 3.0 10.23 Italy 960f,a
Jee et al. [29] 2.0 − 2.0 6.0 7.79 Korea 50npo
Jeebhay et al. [28] 6.0 2.0 9.0 8.35 South Africa 190f,a
Kim et al. [25] 8.6 6.0 11.0 9.10 Korea 465f,nao,a
Kim et al. [24] 0.7 0.0 1.0 10.39 Korea 1806u
Kronqvist et al. [21] 11.0 5.0 18.0 5.45 Sweden 96f,a
Lee et al. [20] 5.0 5.0 6.0 10.36 Korea 7182c,a
Navarro et al. [16] 7.0 3.0 10.0 8.53 Spain 241f,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 1629nco,c
Kim et al. [9] 9.9 6.0 14.0 7.31 Korea 181f,a
Lee et al. [19] 2.2 1.0 3.0 10.24 Korea 1037nco,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    
  1. 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