a statistical study on the impact of dengue fever in ... · june since 1998[12].international...

1 | P a g e

A Statistical Study on the Impact of Dengue Fever in Thanjavur District Using SPSS

Dr. R.Arumugam1, C. Gowri2, M.Rajathi3 Assistant Professor1,3, M.Phil scholar2

1,2Department of Mathematics, Periyar Maniammai Institute of Science & Technology, Thanjavur-613 403, Tamilnadu, India 3Department of Education, Periyar Maniammai Institute of Science & Technology,

Thanjavur-613 403, Tamilnadu, India Email : [email protected], [email protected],

[email protected]

Abstract:

In this paper we are concentrating the significant difference on the gender in dengue fever. It gives proposal for shielding ourselves and our homes from the Aedes mosquito and dengue fever and this study suggests a deliberate exertion by every one of the partners to build information and consciousness of individuals about dengue which can in turn decrease the risk of dengue disease. In order to find disperse data to alleviate dengue contamination and furthermore to realize the most impacting variables influencing it. Also elaborate on a fascinating wellbeing model that has been utilized to chance stratify zones influenced with dengue. We give awareness and to make an interpretation of information into sound practice to control dengue disease epidemics in these zones. To locate the significant difference and dengue infection in the different levels in Thanjavur district SPSS tool is utilized.

Keywords: Epidemic, Dengue Fever, SPSS tool, Aedes mosquito

1. INTRODUCTION

During most recent two decades dengue, which has as of late become a grave general medical issue both in nature and in its force, rose as the quickest spreading mosquito-borne viral ailment on the planet. Prior to 1970, just 9 nations had encountered serious dengue pandemics. The ailment is currently endemic in excess of 100 nations in the WHO (World Western pacific Dengue fever is a mosquito-borne tropical ailment brought about by the dengue infection [1] WHO expresses that Dengue and serious dengue actuality sheet in May 2015. Indications commonly start three to fourteen days after disease Kularatne SA [2] (September 2015) Dengue fever BMJ. This may comprise a high fever, headache, vomiting, muscle and joint pains and a characteristic skin rash [1][2].

Dengue fever is a multisystem issue caused because of contamination by dengue infection which is RNA infection having a place with a flaviviridae family (Rodenhuis et.al, 2010; WHO 2009) [7]. WHO expresses that Dengue rules for determination, Treatment counteractive action and control in 2009.Many distinctive serotypes of this infection have been perceiving of which Ns-1 is the most widely recognized and deadly (Rodenhuis et, al, 2010; WHO 2009) [8]. WHO expresses that Dengue haemorrhagic fever conclusion treatment and control second ed Geneva in 1997. The WHO 2009 order partitions dengue fever into two gatherings: uncomplicated and extreme, however the 1997 WHO arrangement still broadly utilized. The 1997 characterization separated dengue into undifferentiated fever, dengue fever (DH) and dengue haemorrhagic fever (DHF).

Dengue Fever

Different names : Dengue, break bone fever Specialty : Infectious sickness Symptoms : Headache, fever, muscle and joint pain, rash Entanglements : Bleeding, low degrees of blood platelets, hazardously low

Compliance Engineering Journal

Volume 10, Issue 12, 2019

ISSN NO: 0898-3577

Page No: 671

2 | P a g e

Pulse Common beginning : 3-14 days after presentation Length : 2-7 days Causes : Dengue infection by Aedes mosquitos Demonstrative strategy : Detecting antibodies to the infection or its RNA Counteractive action : Dengue fever immunization, diminishing mosquito exposure Treatment : Supportive consideration, intravenous liquids, blood transfusions Dengue has become a worldwide issue since the Second World War and is regular in excess of 110 nations, predominantly in Asia and South America [3][4]. Ranjit S.Kissoon N expresses that Dengue hemorrhagic fever and stun disorders in January 2011. Gubler DJ expresses that dengue and hemorrhagic fever in July 1998.

Figure 1: Skin rash Figure 2: Affected child Figure 3: Aedes mosquito

Every year somewhere in the range of 50 and 528 million individuals are tainted and roughly 10,000 to 20,000, Whitehorn J, Farrar J [5] states that Dengue in 2010, Stanaway JD et. al [6] 2016 states that the worldwide weight of dengue: an investigation from the Global Burden of Disease study 2013. A National Dengue Day is held in India on May 16 out of a push to bring issues to light in influenced nations [10]. "National Dengue Day".6 June 2018. Exertion is progressing starting at 2019 to make it a worldwide occasion [11] Calling for a "World Dengue Day". The worldwide society for ignored tropical ailments recovered on 7 January 2019.The Philippines has a mindfulness month in June since 1998[12].International Anti-Dengue Day is watched each year on 15 June [13] "Checking ASEAN Dengue Day" documented from the first on 17 June 2015. Objectives are to expand open mindfulness about dengue, assemble assets for its avoidance and control and to exhibit the Asian locale's dedication in handling the infection [14]. World Health Organization expresses that ACTION AGAINST DENGUE, Dengue Day Campaigns crosswise over Asia in 2011. Dengue fever cases are customary events in Tamil Nadu consistently following storm. The most noteworthy number of death rate in the age of 19-30 about 100% out of 45% individuals was influenced by dengue in a rustic zone of Thanjavur the majority of the individuals influenced in the year 2016. R.Arumugam et.. al [15] discussed about the statistical approach on applications of inventory management in the Departmental store .

2. STUDY AREA

The optional information was gathered through sites, and it's considered with respect to this examination. In table 1, contains dengue circulation in gender wise during the period 2011-18. In table 2, contains dengue conveyance in age astute during the time of 2015-18. A planned engaging examination was embraced by testing speculated dengue patients going to individuals in Thanjavur rustic region to characterize the extent of dengue trouble, the regular history of this sickness as far as clinical introduction and result of the diseases in the influenced individuals.

Figure 4: Mosquito forming places



ISSN NO: 0898-3577

Page No: 672

3 | P a g e

The sera gathered from suspected patients were broke down for dengue explicit igM and igG antibodies by igM counter acting agent catch chemical connected immunosornbent measure (ELISA) utilizing NIV pack and igGpanBio Duo Rapid safe chromate realistic card test (Brisbane, Australia).

We gathered the information test dependent on influenced individuals through testing the examples were tried quickly for dengue NSI, dengue IgM and IgG. The tests were performed by the above unit convention.

Figure 5: Stages of the Dengue Fever test

3. ANALYSIS

Table 1: Dengue distribution in gender wise during the period 2011-2018

Year/ Sex

Male (Tested)

Male (Positive)

Female (Tested)

Female (Positive)

Gender (Tested)

Gender (Positive)

2011 80 28 72 25 152 53 2012 164 48 153 40 317 88 2013 107 36 97 25 204 61 2014 11 5 9 4 20 9 2015 67 25 149 46 216 71 2016 167 47 63 18 230 65 2017 32 6 40 8 72 14

2018 110 42 92 30 202 72

Total 738 237 675 196 1413 433

Table 2: Dengue distribution in age wise during the period of 2015-2018

Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

Gender Male

positive Female Positive

Male positive

Female positive

Male positive

Female positive

Male positive

Female positive

0-5 6 5 4 3 7 5 0 1 31

6-12 5 5 7 6 5 4 1 1 34 13-18 4 4 8 9 15 4 1 1 36 19-30 5 4 11 8 9 5 1 1 44 31-45 4 3 11 7 6 4 1 0 36 46-55 2 3 6 5 3 2 1 0 22 56+ 2 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 8

Total 28 25 48 40 36 25 5 4 211



ISSN NO: 0898-3577

Page No: 673

4 | P a g e

Table 3: Descriptive statistics using SPSS

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Male (Tested) 8 11.0 167.0 92.250 56.4263

Male (Positive) 8 6.0 48.0 30.375 15.8469 Female(tested) 8 9.0 153.0 84.375 49.8052

Female(positive) 8 4.0 46.0 24.500 14.4815 Valid N (listwise) 8

Table 4: ANOVA Male (Tested) Between Groups (Combined) 22287.500 7

Linear Term Contrast 15655.139

1

Deviation 6632.361 6 Quadratic Term Contrast 9.750 1

Deviation 6622.611 5 Within Groups .000 0 Total 22287.500 7

Male (Positive) Between Groups (Combined) 1757.875 7 Linear Term Contrast 1397.413 1

Deviation 360.462 6 Quadratic Term Contrast .601 1


Female(tested) Between Groups (Combined) 17363.875 7 Linear Term Contrast 13295.52

8 1



Female(positive)

Between Groups (Combined) 1468.000 7 Linear Term Contrast 1128.063 1



Table 5: Descriptive Statistics

Statistic

Bootstrapa

Bias Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Upper Male (Tested) Mean 92.250 .247 19.070 53.628 127.122

Std. Deviation 56.4263 -4.8332 10.3762 29.9177 69.7030 N 8 0 0 8 8



ISSN NO: 0898-3577

Page No: 674

5 | P a g e

Male (Positive) Mean 30.375 .034 5.326 19.128 40.372 Std. Deviation 15.8469 -1.3203 2.9318 7.6334 19.1901 N 8 0 0 8 8

Female(positive) Mean 24.500 -.056 4.798 14.378 33.750 Std. Deviation 14.4815 -1.3159 2.8672 7.3860 18.1773 N 8 0 0 8 8

Female(tested) Mean 84.375 -.095 16.740 49.128 117.225 Std. Deviation 49.8052 -4.6591 10.2023 23.9285 62.8676 N 8 0 0 8 8

Total Mean 176.625 .152 32.017 109.635 235.240 Std. Deviation 93.7945 -9.3686 22.1588 30.6010 122.9732 N 8 0 0 8 8

Dengu positive total

Mean 54.125 -.010 9.550 33.378 70.997 Std. Deviation 28.1954 -2.8074 6.7502 7.7450 35.2659 N 8 0 0 8 8

Table 6: Correlations

Male

(Tested) Male

(Positive) Female

(positive) Female (tested) Total

Male (Tested)

Pearson Correlation 1 .959** .497 .557 .898** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .210 .151 .002 Sum of Squares and Cross-products

22287.500

6004.250 2842.000 10965.25

0 33252.75

0 Covariance 3183.929 857.750 406.000 1566.464 4750.393 N 8 8 8 8 8 Bootstrapc

Bias 0 .005 -.034 -.041 -.016 Std. Error 0 .019 .408 .383 .119 95% Confidence Interval

Lower

1 .921 -.719 -.597 .572

Upper

1 .999 .992 .996 .999

Male (Positive)

Pearson Correlation .959** 1 .569 .586 .888** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .141 .127 .003 Sum of Squares and Cross-products

6004.250 1757.875 914.500 3237.875 9242.125

Covariance 857.750 251.125 130.643 462.554 1320.304 N 8 8 8 8 8 Bootstrapc

Bias .005 0 -.044 -.043 -.016 Std. Error .019 0 .391 .355 .122 95% Confidence Interval

Lower

.921 1 -.664 -.565 .485

Upper

.999 1 .977 .958 .987

Female(positive)

Pearson Correlation .497 .569 1 .973** .815* Sig. (2-tailed) .210 .141 .000 .014 Sum of Squares and Cross-products

2842.000 914.500 1468.000 4911.500 7753.500

Covariance 406.000 130.643 209.714 701.643 1107.643 N 8 8 8 8 8 Bootstrapc

Bias -.034 -.044 0 -.003 -.033 Std. Error .408 .391 0 .025 .202



ISSN NO: 0898-3577

Page No: 675

6 | P a g e


Lower

-.719 -.664 1 .917 .151

Upper

.992 .977 1 .995 .987

Female(tested)

Pearson Correlation .557 .586 .973** 1 .866** Sig. (2-tailed) .151 .127 .000 .005 Sum of Squares and Cross-products

10965.250

3237.875 4911.500 17363.87

5 28329.12


Bias -.041 -.043 -.003 0 -.032 Std. Error .383 .355 .025 0 .170 95% Confidence Interval

Lower

-.597 -.565 .917 1 .356

Upper

.996 .958 .995 1 .999

Total Pearson Correlation .898** .888** .815* .866** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .003 .014 .005 Sum of Squares and Cross-products

33252.750

9242.125 7753.500 28329.12

5 61581.87


Bias -.016 -.016 -.033 -.032 0 Std. Error .119 .122 .202 .170 0 95% Confidence Interval

Lower

.572 .485 .151 .356 1

Upper

.999 .987 .987 .999 1


Pearson Correlation .838** .892** .877** .875** .969** Sig. (2-tailed) .009 .003 .004 .004 .000 Sum of Squares and Cross-products

9333.750 2788.625 2505.500 8601.625 17935.37


Bias -.035 -.037 -.012 -.011 -.011 Std. Error .205 .185 .117 .098 .088 95% Confidence Interval

Lower

.121 .245 .553 .585 .800

Upper

.990 .995 .996 .978 .993

Table 7: Correlations

Male (Tested

)

Male (Positiv

e)

Female(positiv

e) Female(tested)

Total


Kendall's tau_b

Male (Tested)

Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .857** .327 .357

.643*

.643*

Sig. (2-tailed) . .003 .262 .216 .026 .026 N 8 8 8 8 8 8 Bootstrapc

Bias .000 .000 .002 .003 .010 .007 Std. Error .000 .149 .409 .399 .246 .267



ISSN NO: 0898-3577

Page No: 676

7 | P a g e


Lower

1.000 .478 -.666 -.583 .040 .000

Upper

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00

0 1.000

Male (Positive)

Correlation Coefficient .857** 1.000 .327 .357

.643*

.643*

Sig. (2-tailed) .003 . .262 .216 .026 .026 N 8 8 8 8 8 8 Bootstrapc

Bias .000 .000 -.004 -.003 .004 .001 Std. Error .149 .000 .346 .349 .241 .232 95% Confidence Interval

Lower

.478 1.000 -.542 -.478 .040 .120

Upper

1.000 1.000 .956 .905 1.00

0 1.000

Female(positive)

Correlation Coefficient .327 .327 1.000 .837** .546 .691* Sig. (2-tailed) .262 .262 . .004 .061 .018 N 8 8 8 8 8 8 Bootstrapc

Bias .002 -.004 .000 -.002

-.010

-.005

Std. Error .409 .346 .000 .154 .310 .211 95% Confidence Interval

Lower

-.666 -.542 1.000 .459 -

.200 .223

Upper

1.000 .956 1.000 1.000 1.00

0 1.000

Female(tested)

Correlation Coefficient .357 .357 .837** 1.000

.714*

.714*

Sig. (2-tailed) .216 .216 .004 . .013 .013 N 8 8 8 8 8 8 Bootstrapc

Bias .003 -.003 -.002 .000

-.007

-.004


Lower

-.583 -.478 .459 1.000 .040 .200

Upper

1.000 .905 1.000 1.000 1.00

0 1.000

Total Correlation Coefficient .643* .643* .546 .714*

1.000

.714*

Sig. (2-tailed) .026 .026 .061 .013 . .013 N 8 8 8 8 8 8 Bootstrapc

Bias .010 .004 -.010 -.007 .000 -.002 Std. Error .246 .241 .310 .283 .000 .270 95% Confidence Interval

Lower

.040 .040 -.200 .040 1.00

0 .040

Upper

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00

0 1.000


Correlation Coefficient .643* .643* .691* .714*

.714*

1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .026 .026 .018 .013 .013 .



ISSN NO: 0898-3577

Page No: 677

8 | P a g e

N 8 8 8 8 8 8 Bootstrapc

Bias .007 .001 -.005 -.004

-.002

.000


Lower

.000 .120 .223 .200 .040 1.000

Upper

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00

0 1.000

Spearman's rho

Male (Tested)

Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .952** .395 .476

.810*

.738*

Sig. (2-tailed) . .000 .333 .233 .015 .037 N 8 8 8 8 8 8 Bootstrapc

Bias .000 -.030 -.021 -.037

-.043

-.024


Lower

1.000 .615 -.800 -.630 .089 -.077

Upper

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00

0 1.000

Male (Positive)

Correlation Coefficient .952** 1.000 .467 .571

.810*

.786*

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 . .243 .139 .015 .021 N 8 8 8 8 8 8 Bootstrapc

Bias -.030 .000 -.048 -.072

-.047

-.044


Lower

.615 1.000 -.615 -.615 .103 .089

Upper

1.000 1.000 .981 .973 1.00

0 1.000

Female(positive)

Correlation Coefficient .395 .467 1.000 .934** .671 .850** Sig. (2-tailed) .333 .243 . .001 .069 .007 N 8 8 8 8 8 8 Bootstrapc

Bias -.021 -.048 .000 -.033

-.052

-.055

Std. Error .449 .391 .000 .119 .325 .183 95% Con.Interval

Lower -.800 -.615 1.000 .611 -.2 .325 Upper

1.000 .981 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.000

Female(tested)

Correlation Coefficient .476 .571 .934** 1.000

.762*

.833*

Sig. (2-tailed) .233 .139 .001 . .028 .010 N 8 8 8 8 8 8 Bootstrapc

Bias -.037 -.072 -.033 .000

-.026

-.042

Std. Error .429 .374 .119 .000 .298 .213 95% Confidence Int

Lower -.630 -.615 .611 1.000

-.063

.235

Upper 1.000 .973 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.000



ISSN NO: 0898-3577

Page No: 678

9 | P a g e

Total Correlation Coefficient .810* .810* .671 .762*

1.000

.833*

Sig. (2-tailed) .015 .015 .069 .028 . .010 N 8 8 8 8 8 8 Bootstrapc

Bias -.043 -.047 -.052 -.026 .000 -.039 Std. Error .227 .224 .325 .298 .000 .247 95% C.I

Lower .089 .103 -.201 -.063 1.0 .089 Upper 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0 1.000


Correlation Coefficient .738* .786* .850** .833* .8* 1.000 Sig. (2-tailed) .037 .021 .007 .010 .010 . N 8 8 8 8 8 8 Bootstrapc

Bias -.024 -.044 -.055 -.042 -.03 .000 Std. Error .279 .237 .183 .213 .247 .000 95% Con. Int

Lower -.077 .089 .325 .235 .089 1.000 Upper 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.000

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 8:Chi-square test

V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8

Chi-Square 1.200a 1.200a 1.200b .800c 1.200b 2.000d 6.800e Df 6 6 7 8 7 5 3 Asymp. Sig. .977 .977 .991 .999 .991 .849 .079 Exact Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .944 .109 Point Probability

.056 .056 .024 .005 .024 .161 .058

Table 9: Descriptive Statistics

Statistic Std. Error

Bootstrapa

Bias Std. Error


Lower Upper V2 N 10 0 0 10 10

Range 2014 Minimum 1 Maximum 2015 Sum 2072 Mean 207.20 200.882 .00 .00 207.20 207.20 Std. Deviation

635.244 .000 .000 635.244 635.244

Variance 403535.289

.000 .000 403535.28

9 403535.28

9 Skewness 3.161 .687 .000 .000 3.161 3.161 Kurtosis 9.996 1.334 .000 .000 9.996 9.996

V3 N 10 0 0 10 10 Range 2014 Minimum 1 Maximum 2015 Sum 2067 Mean 206.70 200.934 .00 .00 206.70 206.70 Std. Deviation

635.409 .000 .000 635.409 635.409



ISSN NO: 0898-3577

Page No: 679

10 | P a g e

Variance 403745.122

.000 .000 403745.12

2 403745.12



634.253 .000 .000 634.253 634.253

Variance 402276.900

.000 .000 402276.90

0 402276.90



634.732 .000 .000 634.732 634.732

Variance 402885.289

.000 .000 402885.28

9 402885.28



635.348 .000 .000 635.348 635.348

Variance 403666.889

.000 .000 403666.88

9 403666.88



636.042 .000 .000 636.042 636.042

Variance 404549.433

.000 .000 404549.43

3 404549.43


V8 N 10 0 0 10 10



ISSN NO: 0898-3577

Page No: 680

11 | P a g e

Range 2018 Minimum 0 Maximum 2018 Sum 2029 Mean 202.90 201.678 .00 .00 202.90 202.90 Std. Deviation

637.763 .000 .000 637.763 637.763

Variance 406741.211

.000 .000 406741.21

1 406741.21



637.797 .000 .000 637.797 637.797

Variance 406785.511

.000 .000 406785.51

1 406785.51


Valid N (listwise)

N 10 0 0 10 10

4. PREVENTING DENGUE FEVER

The most ideal approach to avert the illness is to prevent bites by contaminated mosquitoes, especially on the off chance that you are living in or going to a tropical region .This includes securing and trying endeavours to hold the mosquito down. In 2019, the FDA endorsed an antibody called Dengvaxia to help keep the ailment from happening in young people matured 9 to 16 who have just been contaminated by dengue. However, there presently is no immunization to keep the overall public from contracting it.

Figure 6: Mosquito killer Figure 7: Mosquito net The World Health Organization suggests an incorporated vector control program comprising of five components [9]: WHO (2019), PP 59-64. 1. Promotion, social preparation and enactment to guarantee that general wellbeing bodies and networks are fortified; 2. Cooperation between the wellbeing and other area (open and private). 3. An incorporated way to deal with illness control to expand utilization of assets. 4. Proof based basic leadership to guarantee any intercessions are focused on suitably; and 5. Limit – working to guarantee a sufficient reaction to the neighborhood circumstance. The essential strategy for controlling Aaegypti is by dispensing with its territories [9].



ISSN NO: 0898-3577

Page No: 681

12 | P a g e

Figure 8: Prevention tips Figure 9: Remedies

5. DISCUSSION OF THE STUDY

Table 1 represents the Dengue dispersion gender wise during the period 2011 to 2018. Table 2 shows that Dengue dissemination in age savvy during the time of 2015to 2018.

From the table 3 portrays that the quantity of cases in the informational collection is recorded under the segment marked N. Data about the scope of factors is contained in the Minimum and Maximum segments. The normal degree of dengue is contained in the Mean section. Inconstancy can be evaluated by inspecting the qualities in the standard deviation section. The more that individual information focuses vary from the mean, the bigger the standard deviation will be. Then again, if there is a lot of similitude between information focuses.

The fourth table speaks to, the Analysis of Variance for the dengue there is huge contrast between male tried, male positive and female tried and female positive at 5% level. Bootstrap technique gives the most extreme and least qualities and the deviations at the 95% certainty interim both male tried, male positive and female tried and female positive from the table 5. Table 6 demonstrates that the Pearson's connection between's the male and female tried and positive. In this investigation we have positive relationship from every one of the levels. Kendal's and Spearman's relationship coefficients are tried at the different levels (least 0.327 and most extreme 1.0) and it is certain from the seventh table.

The huge level and point probabilities (0.005 to 0.161) and Chi-square qualities are given from the table seven. Table 9 shows that the enlightening insights resemble mean, standard deviation, fluctuation, least, greatest, go and the total for the dengue positive and dengue tried both male and females.

6. CONCLUSION

In spite of the seriousness and casualty of the dengue fever and its overwhelming endemicity among numerous variables, information about the sicknesses is by all accounts defenceless possibility for dengue infection contamination and along these lines significant endeavours had been applied to improve the information and comprehension about the malady around the world. Mosquito, vaporizers, curls and nets were the most widely recognized preventive strategies utilized among the investigations. TV, web, companions, neighbours, and family members were the most widely recognized wellsprings of data about dengue fever revealed in the vast majority of the inspected examinations. It is clear that it is a pressing need for open human services associations to improve open mindfulness about dengue fever through TV, web, radio and school wellbeing instruction sessions.



ISSN NO: 0898-3577

Page No: 682

13 | P a g e

REFERENCES

[1] Dengue and severe dengue fact sheet WHO. May 2015. Archived from the original on 2 september2016, Retrieved 3 February 2016.

[2] KularatneSA (September 2015) Dengue fever BMJ. [3] Ranjit S, Kissoon N(January 2011), Dengue hemorrhagic fever and shock syndromes. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine. [4] Gubler DJ(July 1998). Dengue and dengue hemorrhagic fever, clinical Microbiology

Reviews. [5] Whitehorn J, Farrar J (2010). Dengue British Medical [6] Stanaway JD, Shepard DS, Undurraga EA, Halasa YA, Coffeng LE, Brady OJ, Hay

SI, Bedi N, Bensenor IM, Castaneda Orjuela CA, Chuang TW, Gibney KB, Memish ZA, Rafay A, UkwajaKN,Yonemoto N,Murray CJ(June 2016). The global burden of dengue:an analysis from the Global Burden of Disease study 2013.The Lancet. Infectious Diseases.

[7] WHO (2009). Dengue guidelines for diagnosis, Treatment prevention and control(PDF). World health organisation.ISBN 92-4-154787-1.

[8] WHO. Dengue haemorrhagic fever: diagnosis treatment prevention and control. 2nd ed. Geneva, WHO; 1997. [9] Integrated vector control program consisting of five elements, WHO (2009),

PP. 59-64. [10] “National Dengue Day”, 6 June 2018 Retrieved 7 January 2019. [11] “Calling for a World Dengue Day”, the international society for neglected tropical diseases.

Retrieved 7 January2019 [12] “Dengue Awareness Month| GOVPH”, Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines.

Official Gazette. 2 June 2011, Retrieved 7 January 2019. [13] “Marking ASEAN Dengue Day”, Archived from the original on 17 June 2015, Retrieved 16

June 2015. [14] ACTION AGAINST DENDUE Dengue Day Campaigns across Asia. World Health organization.2011 [15] R. Yasotha Nandhini, Dr.R. Arumugam, M.Rajathi, A statistical approach on applications of

inventory management in the departmental store, International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR), Vol 6, Issue 2, June 2019.



ISSN NO: 0898-3577

Page No: 683

a statistical study on the impact of dengue fever in ... · june since 1998[12].international...

Documents