ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2020
Estimation of mosquito-borne and sexual transmission of Zika virus in Australia: Risks to blood transfusion safety.
Article 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 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Two-Year Surveillance of Dengue, Zika, and Chikungunya Viruses Among Chinese Blood Donors - Guangxi and Yunnan PLADs, China, 2022-2023.China CDC weekly · 2025Article
- Past and future epidemic potential of chikungunya virus in Australia.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2021Article
- Review
- Papaya Fruit Pulp and Resulting Lactic Fermented Pulp Exert Antiviral Activity against Zika Virus.Microorganisms · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince 2015, Zika virus (ZIKV) outbreaks have occurred in the Americas and the Pacific involving mosquito-borne and sexual transmission. ZIKV has also emerged as a risk to global blood transfusion safety. Aedes aegypti, a mosquito well established in north and some parts of central and southern Queensland, Australia, transmits ZIKV. Aedes albopictus, another potential ZIKV vector, is a threat to mainland Australia. Since these conditions create the potential for local transmission in Australia and a possible uncertainty in the effectiveness of blood donor risk-mitigation programs, we investigated the possible impact of mosquito-borne and sexual transmission of ZIKV in Australia on local blood transfusion safety. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsWe estimated 'best-' and 'worst-' case scenarios of monthly reproduction number (R0) for both transmission pathways of ZIKV from 1996-2015 in 11 urban or regional population centres, by varying epidemiological and entomological estimates. We then estimated the attack rate and subsequent number of infectious people to quantify the ZIKV transfusion-transmission risk using the European Up-Front Risk Assessment Tool. For all scenarios and with both vector species R0 was lower than one for ZIKV transmission. However, a higher risk of a sustained outbreak was estimated for Cairns, Rockhampton, Thursday Island, and theoretically in Darwin during the warmest months of the year. The yearly estimation of the risk of transmitting ZIKV infection by blood transfusion remained low through the study period for all locations, with the highest potential risk estimated in Darwin. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Given the increasing demand for plasma products in Australia, the current strategy of restricting donors returning from infectious disease outbreak regions to source plasma collection provides a simple and effective risk management approach. However, if local transmission was suspected in the main urban centres of Australia, potentially facilitated by the geographic range expansion of Ae. aegypti or Ae. albopictus, this mitigation strategy would need urgent review.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.