Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30110370›Full record

Observational studyPloS one2018

Zika might not be acting alone: Using an ecological study approach to investigate potential co-acting risk factors for an unusual pattern of microcephaly in Brazil.

Monica C Campos, Jamille G Dombrowski, Jody Phelan, Claudio R F Marinho, Martin Hibberd, Taane G Clark, Susana Campino

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Monica C CamposFaculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Jamille G DombrowskiDepartment of Parasitology, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Jody PhelanFaculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Claudio R F MarinhoDepartment of Parasitology, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Martin HibberdFaculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Taane G ClarkFaculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Susana CampinoFaculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1403-6138
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversidade de São Paulo · BR

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_15103Medical Research Council MR/K000551/1Medical Research Council MR/M01360X/1Medical Research Council MR/N010469/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Zika virus infections can cause a range of neurologic disorders including congenital microcephaly. However, while Zika infections have been notified across all regions in Brazil, there has been an unusual number of congenital microcephaly case notifications concentrated in the Northeast of the country. To address this observation, we investigated epidemiological data (2014-2016) on arbovirus co-distribution, environmental and socio-economic factors for each region in Brazil. Data on arbovirus reported cases and microcephaly were collected from several Brazilian Ministry of Health databases for each Federal unit. These were complemented by environmental management, social economic and Aedes aegypti infestation index data, extracted from multiple databases. Spatial time "ecological" analysis on the number of arboviruses transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes in Brazil show that the distribution of dengue and Zika was widespread in the whole country, with higher incidence in the West-Central region. However, reported chikungunya cases were higher in the Northeast, the region also with the highest number of microcephaly cases registered. Social economic factors (human development index and poverty index) and environmental management (water supply/storage and solid waste management) pointed the Northeast as the less wealthy region. The Northeast is also the region with the highest risk of Aedes aegypti house infestation due to the man-made larval habitats. In summary, the results of our ecological analysis support the hypothesis that the unusual distribution of microcephaly might not be due to Zika infection alone and could be accentuated by poverty and previous or co-infection with other pathogens. Our study reinforces the link between poverty and the risk of disease and the need to understand the effect on pathogenesis of sequential exposure to arboviruses and co-viral infections. Comprehensive large-scale cohort studies are required to corroborate our findings. We recommend that the list of infectious diseases screened, particularly during pregnancy, be regularly updated to include and effectively differentiate all viruses from ongoing outbreaks.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualEcosystemPovertyZika VirusAedesAnimalsBrazilFemaleHumansIncidenceInfantInfant, NewbornLarvaMaleMicrocephalyZika Virus Infection

Identifiers

PMID30110370
PMCPMC6093667
OpenAlexW2885699815

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.