Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25928673›Full record

ReviewPLoS neglected tropical diseases2015

Reviewing dengue: still a neglected tropical disease?

Olaf Horstick, Yesim Tozan, Annelies Wilder-Smith

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03612609 (Pilot Study to Detect DENGUE Virus in Sperm.), which is not on this map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03612609 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Pilot Study to Detect DENGUE Virus in Sperm.

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Hospital, ToulouseRan2019 to 2019Enrolled10ConditionsDengueArmsblood, urine and semen sample
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. A Bibliometric Analysis on Dengue Outbreaks in Tropical and Sub-Tropical Climates Worldwide Since 1950.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Olaf HorstickInstitute of Public Health, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Yesim TozanInstitute of Public Health, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development and Global Institute of Public Health, New York University, New York, New York, United States of America.
Annelies Wilder-SmithInstitute of Public Health, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore; Department of Global Health and Epidemiology, Umea University, Umea, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dengue is currently listed as a "neglected tropical disease" (NTD). But is dengue still an NTD or not? Classifying dengue as an NTD may carry advantages, but is it justified? This review considers the criteria for the definition of an NTD, the current diverse lists of NTDs by different stakeholders, and the commonalities and differences of dengue with other NTDs. We also review the current research gaps and research activities and the adequacy of funding for dengue research and development (R&D) (2003-2013). NTD definitions have been developed to a higher precision since the early 2000s, with the following main features: NTDs are characterised as a) poverty related, b) endemic to the tropics and subtropics, c) lacking public health attention, d) having poor research funding and shortcomings in R&D, e) usually associated with high morbidity but low mortality, and f) often having no specific treatment available. Dengue meets most of these criteria, but not all. Although dengue predominantly affects resource-limited countries, it does not necessarily only target the poor and marginalised in those countries. Dengue increasingly attracts public health attention, and in some affected countries it is now a high profile disease. Research funding for dengue has increased exponentially in the past two decades, in particular in the area of dengue vaccine development. However, despite advances in dengue research, dengue epidemics are increasing in frequency and magnitude, and dengue is expanding to new areas. Specific treatment and a highly effective vaccine remain elusive. Major research gaps exist in the area of integrated surveillance and vector control. Hence, although dengue differs from many of the NTDs, it still meets important criteria commonly used for NTDs. The current need for increased R&D spending, shared by dengue and other NTDs, is perhaps the key reason why dengue should continue to be considered an NTD.

Indexed as

DengueDengue VaccinesHumansNeglected DiseasesPublic HealthDengue Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID25928673
PMCPMC4415787

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.