Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30188898›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2018

Burden of leishmaniasis in Brazil and federated units, 1990-2016: Findings from Global Burden of Disease Study 2016.

Juliana Maria Trindade Bezerra, Valdelaine Etelvina Miranda de Araújo, David Soeiro Barbosa, Francisco Rogerlândio Martins-Melo, Guilherme Loureiro Werneck, Mariângela Carneiro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 40 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Flavonoids in the treatment ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Virulence · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Epidemiologic aspects and spatial distribution of human visceral leishmaniasis: a cross-sectional study, Crateús, 2007-2023.Epidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

6 authors.

Juliana Maria Trindade BezerraEpidemiology of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases Laboratory, Department of Parasitology, Institute of Biological Sciences, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-9840-6217
Valdelaine Etelvina Miranda de AraújoSecretariat of Health Surveillance, Ministry of Health, Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil.
David Soeiro BarbosaEpidemiology of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases Laboratory, Department of Parasitology, Institute of Biological Sciences, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Francisco Rogerlândio Martins-MeloFederal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Ceará, Caucaia, Ceará, Brazil.
Guilherme Loureiro WerneckInstitute for Public Health Studies, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Mariângela CarneiroEpidemiology of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases Laboratory, Department of Parasitology, Institute of Biological Sciences, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe study presents estimates for the burden of visceral leishmaniasis (VL) and cutaneous and mucocutaneous leishmaniasis (CML) in Brazil and its 27 federated units using data from the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) 2016. METHODOLOGY: We report the incidence, years of life lost (YLL), years lived with disability (YLD), and disability-adjusted life years (DALY) for leishmaniasis in Brazil from 1990 to 2016. The metrics are presented as age-standardized rates per 100,000 inhabitants with their respective uncertainty intervals (95%UI) and relative percentages of change. PRINCIPAL

findingsThe age-standardized incidence rate of leishmaniasis decreased 48.5% from 1990 (71.0, 95%UI 24.3-150.7) to 2016 (36.5, 95%UI 24.7-50.9), whereas the age-standardized DALY increased 83.6% over the studied period from 12.2 (95%UI 7.9-18.8) to 22.4 (95%UI 13.3-36.2). The age-standardized incidence rate and YLL for VL increased by 52.9% and 108% from 1990 to 2016, respectively. Considering CML, the age-standardized incidence rate and YLD decreased by 51% and 31.8% respectively for the same period. For VL, similar profiles for male and female were observed, with YLL and DALY increasing over time; with males presenting slightly higher values. The highest YLL rates were among "under 1-year old" children, which increased 131.2% from 1990 to 2016. Regarding CML, the highest values of YLD and DALY were verified among males, and YLD values showed a similar profile, with rates increasing with age. The VL burden increased in some states in the Northeast and Southeast regions and decreased for CML in some Northern states.

conclusionThe increase of VL burden over the study period might be associated with the difficulties in controlling the disease spread. Information regarding the weight of VL and CML, including the death and disability tolls that they cause, highlights the impact of these neglected diseases on public health and the importance of effective prevention and treatment.

Indexed as

Global Burden of DiseaseAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBrazilChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansIncidenceInfantInfant, NewbornLeishmaniasisMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID30188898
PMCPMC6126835

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.