Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30811438›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2019

A systematic review of individual and community mitigation measures for prevention and control of chikungunya virus.

Catherine Hierlihy, Lisa Waddell, Ian Young, Judy Greig, Tricia Corrin, Mariola Mascarenhas

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Evidence map of strategies for preventing and controllingRevista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Chikungunya: risks for travellers.Journal of travel medicine · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Catherine HierlihyPublic Health Risk Sciences Division, National Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6232-2502
Lisa WaddellPublic Health Risk Sciences Division, National Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Ian YoungSchool of Occupational and Public Health, Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Judy GreigPublic Health Risk Sciences Division, National Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Tricia CorrinPublic Health Risk Sciences Division, National Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Mariola MascarenhasPublic Health Risk Sciences Division, National Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Public Health Agency of Canada · CAToronto Metropolitan University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChikungunya is a mosquito-borne virus transmitted by mosquitoes from the Aedes genus. The virus, endemic to parts of Asia and Africa, has recently undergone an emergence in other parts of the world where it was previously not found including Indian Ocean Islands, Europe, the Western Pacific and the Americas. There is no vaccine against chikungunya virus, which means that prevention and mitigation rely on personal protective measures and community level interventions including vector control. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsA systematic review (SR) was conducted to summarize the literature on individual and community mitigation and control measures and their effectiveness. From a scoping review of the global literature on chikungunya, there were 91 articles that investigated mitigation or control strategies identified at the individual or community level. Of these, 81 were confirmed as relevant and included in this SR. The majority of the research was published since 2010 (76.5%) and was conducted in Asia (39.5%). Cross sectional studies were the most common study design (36.6%). Mitigation measures were placed into six categories: behavioural protective measures, insecticide use, public education, control of blood and blood products, biological vector control and quarantine of infected individuals. The effectiveness of various mitigation measures was rarely evaluated and outcomes were rarely quantitative, making it difficult to summarize results across studies and between mitigation strategies. Meta-analysis of the proportion of individuals engaging in various mitigation measures indicates habitat removal is the most common measure used, which may demonstrate the effectiveness of public education campaigns aimed at reducing standing water. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Further research with appropriate and consistent outcome measurements are required in order to determine which mitigation measures, or combination of mitigation measures, are the most effective at protecting against exposure to chikungunya virus.

Indexed as

AedesAnimalsChikungunya FeverDatabases, FactualHumansInsecticidesMosquito ControlPatient IsolationInsecticides

Identifiers

PMID30811438
PMCPMC6392276
OpenAlexW2915363950

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.