Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29317702›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2018

Surveillance of vector-borne pathogens under imperfect detection: lessons from Chagas disease risk (mis)measurement.

Thaís Tâmara Castro Minuzzi-Souza, Nadjar Nitz, César Augusto Cuba Cuba, Luciana Hagström, Mariana Machado Hecht, Camila Santana, Marcelle Ribeiro, Tamires Emanuele Vital, Marcelo Santalucia, Monique Knox and 3 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Strategic planning of prevention and surveillance for emerging diseases and invasive species.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. New Approaches to the Ecology ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Current research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Thaís Tâmara Castro Minuzzi-SouzaLaboratório de Parasitologia Médica e Biologia de Vetores, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, 72910-900, Brazil.
Nadjar NitzLaboratório Interdisciplinar de Biociências, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, 72910-900, Brazil.
César Augusto Cuba CubaLaboratório de Parasitologia Médica e Biologia de Vetores, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, 72910-900, Brazil.
Luciana HagströmLaboratório Interdisciplinar de Biociências, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, 72910-900, Brazil.
Mariana Machado HechtLaboratório Interdisciplinar de Biociências, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, 72910-900, Brazil.
Camila SantanaLaboratório Interdisciplinar de Biociências, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, 72910-900, Brazil.
Marcelle RibeiroLaboratório Interdisciplinar de Biociências, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, 72910-900, Brazil.
Tamires Emanuele VitalLaboratório Interdisciplinar de Biociências, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, 72910-900, Brazil.
Marcelo SantaluciaLaboratório Central de Saúde Pública, Secretaria Estadual de Saúde de Goiás, Goiânia, 74853-120, Brazil.
Monique KnoxDiretoria de Vigilância Ambiental, Secretaria de Saúde do Distrito Federal, Brasília, 70086-900, Brazil.
Marcos Takashi ObaraLaboratório de Parasitologia Médica e Biologia de Vetores, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, 72910-900, Brazil.
Fernando Abad-FranchGrupo Triatomíneos, Instituto René Rachou - Fiocruz, Belo Horizonte, 30190-009, Brazil. fernando.abad@minas.fiocruz.br.
Rodrigo Gurgel-GonçalvesLaboratório de Parasitologia Médica e Biologia de Vetores, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, 72910-900, Brazil. rgurgel@unb.br.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vector-borne pathogens threaten human health worldwide. Despite their critical role in disease prevention, routine surveillance systems often rely on low-complexity pathogen detection tests of uncertain accuracy. In Chagas disease surveillance, optical microscopy (OM) is routinely used for detecting Trypanosoma cruzi in its vectors. Here, we use replicate T. cruzi detection data and hierarchical site-occupancy models to assess the reliability of OM-based T. cruzi surveillance while explicitly accounting for false-negative and false-positive results. We investigated 841 triatomines with OM slides (1194 fresh, 1192 Giemsa-stained) plus conventional (cPCR, 841 assays) and quantitative PCR (qPCR, 1682 assays). Detections were considered unambiguous only when parasitologists unmistakably identified T. cruzi in Giemsa-stained slides. qPCR was >99% sensitive and specific, whereas cPCR was ~100% specific but only ~55% sensitive. In routine surveillance, examination of a single OM slide per vector missed ~50-75% of infections and wrongly scored as infected ~7% of the bugs. qPCR-based and model-based infection frequency estimates were nearly three times higher, on average, than OM-based indices. We conclude that the risk of vector-borne Chagas disease may be substantially higher than routine surveillance data suggest. The hierarchical modelling approach we illustrate can help enhance vector-borne disease surveillance systems when pathogen detection is imperfect.

Identifiers

PMID29317702
PMCPMC5760667

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.