ArticleBulletin of the World Health Organization2018
Zika virus infection estimates, Mexico.
Article in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Zika virus infection as a cause of congenital brain abnormalities and Guillain-Barré syndrome: A living systematic review.F1000Research · 2019Pooled it
- Factors associated with infection and hospitalization of Zika cases during the 2016-2018 outbreak in Mexico.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Epidemiological Surveillance of Genetically Determined Microcephaly in Latin America: A Narrative Review.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Serologic Surveillance for Orthoflaviviruses and Chikungunya Virus in Bats and Opossums in Chiapas, Mexico.Viruses · 2025Article
- Intrauterine Transmission of Zika and Vertical Transfer of Neutralizing Antibodies Detected Immediately at Birth in Oaxaca, Mexico: An Analysis in the Context of Microcephaly.Microorganisms · 2024Article
- Increasing Public Health Mosquito Surveillance in Hidalgo County, Texas to Monitor Vector and Arboviral Presence.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Optimization of irradiation dose to Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus in a sterile insect technique program.PloS one · 2019Article
- Zika virus: Epidemiological surveillance of the Mexican Institute of Social Security.PloS one · 2019Article
- Projecting the end of the Zika virus epidemic in Latin America: a modelling analysis.BMC medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the magnitude of the Mexican epidemic of Zika virus infection and the associated risk of microcephaly.
methodsFrom the reported number of laboratory-confirmed symptomatic infections among pregnant women and the relevant birth rate, we estimated the number of symptomatic cases of infection that occurred in Mexico between 25 November 2015, when the first confirmed Mexican case was reported, and 20 August 2016. We used data from the birth certificates to compare mean monthly incidences of congenital microcephaly before (1 January 2010-30 November 2015) and after (1 December 2015-30 September 2017) the introduction of Zika virus, stratifying the data according to whether the mother's place of residence was at an altitude of at least 2200 m above sea level. We used Poisson interrupted time series, statistical modelling and graphical analyses.
findingsOur estimated number of symptomatic cases of infection that may have occurred in the general population of Mexico between 25 November 2015 and 20 August 2016, 60 172, was 7.3-fold higher than the corresponding number of reported cases. The monthly numbers of microcephaly cases per 100 000 live births were significantly higher after the introduction of the virus than before (incidence rate ratio, IRR: 2.9; 95% confidence interval, CI: 2.3 to 3.6), especially among the babies of women living at altitudes below 2200 m (IRR: 3.4; 95% CI: 2.9 to 3.9).
conclusionThe Mexican epidemic appears to be much larger than indicated by estimates based solely on counts of laboratory-confirmed cases, and to be associated with significantly increased risk of microcephaly.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.