Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30011275›Full record

SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2018

Dengue infection in India: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Parasuraman Ganeshkumar, Manoj V Murhekar, Veeraraghavadoss Poornima, Velusamy Saravanakumar, Krishnendu Sukumaran, Anandan Anandaselvasankar, Denny John, Sanjay M Mehendale

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Epidemiology of Dengue Virus Infection in Different Geopolitical Zones of Odisha in Relation to Climatic Variation: An Observational Study.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Parasuraman GaneshkumarDepartment of Epidemiology, National Institute of Epidemiology, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Manoj V MurhekarDepartment of Epidemiology, National Institute of Epidemiology, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Veeraraghavadoss PoornimaSchool of Public Health, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India.
Velusamy SaravanakumarDepartment of Epidemiology, National Institute of Epidemiology, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Krishnendu SukumaranSchool of Public Health, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India.
Anandan AnandaselvasankarSchool of Public Health, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India.
Denny JohnCampbell Collaboration, New Delhi, India.ORCID 0000-0002-4486-632X
Sanjay M MehendaleDivision of Epidemiology and Communicable Diseases, Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDengue is the most extensively spread mosquito-borne disease; endemic in more than 100 countries. Information about dengue disease burden, its prevalence, incidence and geographic distribution is critical in planning appropriate control measures against dengue fever. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of dengue fever in India.

methodsWe searched for studies published until 2017 reporting the incidence, the prevalence or case fatality of dengue in India. Our primary outcomes were (a) prevalence of laboratory confirmed dengue infection among clinically suspected patients, (b) seroprevalence in the general population and (c) case fatality ratio among laboratory confirmed dengue patients. We used binomial-normal mixed effects regression model to estimate the pooled proportion of dengue infections. Forest plots were used to display pooled estimates. The metafor package of R software was used to conduct meta-analysis.

resultsOf the 2285 identified articles on dengue, we included 233 in the analysis wherein 180 reported prevalence of laboratory confirmed dengue infection, seven reported seroprevalence as evidenced by IgG or neutralizing antibodies against dengue and 77 reported case fatality. The overall estimate of the prevalence of laboratory confirmed dengue infection among clinically suspected patients was 38.3% (95% CI: 34.8%-41.8%). The pooled estimate of dengue seroprevalence in the general population and CFR among laboratory confirmed patients was 56.9% (95% CI: 37.5-74.4) and 2.6% (95% CI: 2-3.4) respectively. There was significant heterogeneity in reported outcomes (p-values<0.001).

conclusionsIdentified gaps in the understanding of dengue epidemiology in India emphasize the need to initiate community-based cohort studies representing different geographic regions to generate reliable estimates of age-specific incidence of dengue and studies to generate dengue seroprevalence data in the country.

Indexed as

Antibodies, ViralDengueDengue VirusHumansIndiaSeroepidemiologic StudiesAntibodies, Viral

Identifiers

PMID30011275
PMCPMC6078327

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.