Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27643596›Full record

ReviewPLoS neglected tropical diseases2016

Public Health Responses to and Challenges for the Control of Dengue Transmission in High-Income Countries: Four Case Studies.

Elvina Viennet, Scott A Ritchie, Craig R Williams, Helen M Faddy, David Harley

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Factors influencing community engagement approaches used in Aedes aegypti management in Cairns, Australia.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

5 authors.

Elvina ViennetResearch School of Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Scott A RitchieSchool of Public Health, Tropical Medicine and Rehabilitation Sciences, James Cook University, Cairns, Queensland, Australia.
Craig R WilliamsSansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Helen M FaddyResearch and Development, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, Kelvin Grove, Queensland, Australia.
David HarleyResearch School of Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dengue has a negative impact in low- and lower middle-income countries, but also affects upper middle- and high-income countries. Despite the efforts at controlling this disease, it is unclear why dengue remains an issue in affluent countries. A better understanding of dengue epidemiology and its burden, and those of chikungunya virus and Zika virus which share vectors with dengue, is required to prevent the emergence of these diseases in high-income countries in the future. The purpose of this review was to assess the relative burden of dengue in four high-income countries and to appraise the similarities and differences in dengue transmission. We searched PubMed, ISI Web of Science, and Google Scholar using specific keywords for articles published up to 05 May 2016. We found that outbreaks rarely occur where only Aedes albopictus is present. The main similarities between countries uncovered by our review are the proximity to dengue-endemic countries, the presence of a competent mosquito vector, a largely nonimmune population, and a lack of citizens' engagement in control of mosquito breeding. We identified important epidemiological and environmental issues including the increase of local transmission despite control efforts, population growth, difficulty locating larval sites, and increased human mobility from neighboring endemic countries. Budget cuts in health and lack of practical vaccines contribute to an increased risk. To be successful, dengue-control programs for high-income countries must consider the epidemiology of dengue in other countries and use this information to minimize virus importation, improve the control of the cryptic larval habitat, and engage the community in reducing vector breeding. Finally, the presence of a communicable disease center is critical for managing and reducing future disease risks.

Indexed as

Communicable Disease ControlAedesAnimalsDengueDengue VirusDeveloped CountriesEcosystemFloridaHumansInsect VectorsLarvaMosquito ControlPublic HealthQueenslandSingaporeTaiwan

Identifiers

PMID27643596
PMCPMC5028037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.