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

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

Years	Population prevalence		Prevalence of children		Positive rates of canine faeces		Prevalence of livestock
Years	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

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

ISSN: 2049-9957