Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32525957›Full record

ReviewPLoS neglected tropical diseases2020

A comparative analysis of the 2007 and 2017 Italian chikungunya outbreaks and implication for public health response.

Beniamino Caputo, Gianluca Russo, Mattia Manica, Francesco Vairo, Piero Poletti, Giorgio Guzzetta, Stefano Merler, Carolina Scagnolari, Angelo Solimini

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

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

9 authors.

Beniamino CaputoDipartimento di Sanitá Pubblica e Malattie Infettive, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Gianluca RussoDipartimento di Sanitá Pubblica e Malattie Infettive, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8764-7389
Mattia ManicaDepartment of Biodiversity and Molecular Ecology, Research and Innovation Centre, Fondazione Edmund Mach, San Michele all'Adige (TN), Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3709-1199
Francesco VairoRegional Service for Surveillance and Control of Infectious Diseases (SERESMI)-Lazio Region, National Institute for Infectious Diseases "Lazzaro Spallanzani" IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Piero PolettiEpilab-JRU, FEM-FBK Joint Research Unit, Trento, Italy.
Giorgio GuzzettaEpilab-JRU, FEM-FBK Joint Research Unit, Trento, Italy.
Stefano MerlerEpilab-JRU, FEM-FBK Joint Research Unit, Trento, Italy.
Carolina ScagnolariDepartment of Molecular Medicine, Laboratory of Virology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Angelo SoliminiDipartimento di Sanitá Pubblica e Malattie Infettive, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

KEY

resultsBoth outbreaks started in small towns, but cases were also detected in nearby larger cities where transmission was limited to small clusters. The time spans between the first and the last symptom onsets were similar between the 2 outbreaks, and the delay from the symptom onset of the index case and the first case notified was considerable. Comparable infection and transmission rates were observed in laboratory. The basic reproductive number (R0) was estimated in the range of 1.8-6 (2007) and 1.5-2.6 (2017). Clinical characteristics were similar between outbreaks, and no acute complications were reported, though a higher frequency of ocular symptoms, myalgia, and rash was observed in 2017. Very little is known about the immune mediator profile of CHIKV-infected patients during the 2 outbreaks. Regarding public health responses, after the 2007 outbreak, the Italian Ministry of Health developed national guidelines to implement surveillance and good practices to prevent and control autochthonous transmission. However, only a few regional authorities implemented it, and the perception of outbreak risk and knowledge of clinical symptoms and transmission dynamics by general practitioners remained low. MAJOR

conclusionsEfforts should be devoted to developing suitable procedures for early detection of virus circulation in the population, possibly through the analysis of medical records in near real time. Increasing the awareness of CHIKV of general practitioners and public health officials through tailored education may be effective, especially in small coastal towns where the outbreak risk may be higher. A key element is also the shift of citizen awareness from considering Aedes mosquitoes not only as a nuisance problem but also as a public health one. We advocate the need of strengthening the surveillance and of promoting the active participation of the communities to prevent and contain future outbreaks.

Indexed as

Disease OutbreaksAnimalsBasic Reproduction NumberChikungunya FeverCommunicable Disease ControlDisease Transmission, InfectiousEpidemiological MonitoringHealth EducationHealth PolicyHumansItalyTreatment OutcomeVector Borne Diseases

Identifiers

PMID32525957
PMCPMC7289343

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.