10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Dengue Virus Infection and Associated Risk Factors in Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Dengue contributes a significant burden on global public health and economies. In Africa, the burden of dengue virus (DENV) infection is not well described. This review was undertaken to determine the prevalence of dengue and associated risk factors. A literature search was done on PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar databases to identify articles published between 1960 and 2020. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effect model at a 95% confidence interval, followed by subgroup meta-analysis to determine the overall prevalence. Between 1960 and 2020, 45 outbreaks were identified, of which 17 and 16 occurred in East and West Africa, respectively. Dengue virus serotype 1 (DENV-1) and DENV-2 were the dominant serotypes contributing to 60% of the epidemics. Of 2211 cases reported between 2009 and 2020; 1954 (88.4%) were reported during outbreaks. Overall, the prevalence of dengue was 29% (95% CI: 20–39%) and 3% (95% CI: 1–5%) during the outbreak and non-outbreak periods, respectively. Old age (6/21 studies), lack of mosquito control (6/21), urban residence (4/21), climate change (3/21), and recent history of travel (3/21) were the leading risk factors. This review reports a high burden of dengue and increased risk of severe disease in Africa. Our findings provide useful information for clinical practice and health policy decisions to implement effective interventions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references99

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

          Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

            Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The global distribution and burden of dengue

              Dengue is a systemic viral infection transmitted between humans by Aedes mosquitoes 1 . For some patients dengue is a life-threatening illness 2 . There are currently no licensed vaccines or specific therapeutics, and substantial vector control efforts have not stopped its rapid emergence and global spread 3 . The contemporary worldwide distribution of the risk of dengue virus infection 4 and its public health burden are poorly known 2,5 . Here we undertake an exhaustive assembly of known records of dengue occurrence worldwide, and use a formal modelling framework to map the global distribution of dengue risk. We then pair the resulting risk map with detailed longitudinal information from dengue cohort studies and population surfaces to infer the public health burden of dengue in 2010. We predict dengue to be ubiquitous throughout the tropics, with local spatial variations in risk influenced strongly by rainfall, temperature and the degree of urbanisation. Using cartographic approaches, we estimate there to be 390 million (95 percent credible interval 284-528) dengue infections per year, of which 96 million (67-136) manifest apparently (any level of clinical or sub-clinical severity). This infection total is more than three times the dengue burden estimate of the World Health Organization 2 . Stratification of our estimates by country allows comparison with national dengue reporting, after taking into account the probability of an apparent infection being formally reported. The most notable differences are discussed. These new risk maps and infection estimates provide novel insights into the global, regional and national public health burden imposed by dengue. We anticipate that they will provide a starting point for a wider discussion about the global impact of this disease and will help guide improvements in disease control strategies using vaccine, drug and vector control methods and in their economic evaluation. [285]
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Viruses
                Viruses
                viruses
                Viruses
                MDPI
                1999-4915
                24 March 2021
                April 2021
                : 13
                : 4
                : 536
                Affiliations
                [1 ]SACIDS Africa Centre of Excellence for Infectious Diseases, Sokoine University of Agriculture, P.O. Box 3297 Morogoro, Tanzania; gaspary.mwanyika@ 123456sacids.org (G.O.M.); leonard.mboera@ 123456sacids.org (L.E.G.M.); sima.rugarabamu@ 123456sacids.org (S.R.); ngingobaraka@ 123456gmail.com (B.N.); calvin.sindato@ 123456sacids.org (C.S.)
                [2 ]Department of Veterinary Microbiology, Parasitology and Biotechnology, Sokoine University of Agriculture, P.O. Box 3015 Morogoro, Tanzania
                [3 ]Department of Health Science and Technology, Mbeya University of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 131 Mbeya, Tanzania
                [4 ]Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, P.O. Box 65595 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
                [5 ]Biology Department, St. John’s University of Tanzania, P.O. Box 47 Dodoma, Tanzania
                [6 ]Tabora Research Centre, National Institute for Medical Research, P.O. Box 482 Tabora, Tanzania
                [7 ]Department of Arbovirology, Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases, Uganda Virus Research Institute, P.O. Box 49 Entebbe, Uganda; jjlutwama03@ 123456yahoo.com
                [8 ]National Health Laboratory Service, National Institute for Communicable Diseases, Sandringham, 2192 Johannesburg, South Africa; janusz@ 123456gmail.com
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5549-8393
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5746-3776
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1473-3750
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1827-6403
                Article
                viruses-13-00536
                10.3390/v13040536
                8063827
                33804839
                3275fc2c-f2e7-41f4-b121-aa2adc307524
                © 2021 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 25 February 2021
                : 04 March 2021
                Categories
                Review

                Microbiology & Virology
                dengue,prevalence,risk factors,africa
                Microbiology & Virology
                dengue, prevalence, risk factors, africa

                Comments

                Comment on this article