Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32854714›Full record

SynthesisBMC medicine2020

The burden of laboratory-confirmed pertussis in low- and middle-income countries since the inception of the Expanded Programme on Immunisation (EPI) in 1974: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Rudzani Muloiwa, Benjamin M Kagina, Mark E Engel, Gregory D Hussey

Open access · goldAbstract readHistorical ArticleMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rudzani MuloiwaDepartment of Paediatrics & Child Health, Groote Schuur Hospital, University of Cape Town, Main Road, Observatory, 7925, Cape Town, Republic of South Africa. Rudzani.Muloiwa@uct.ac.za.ORCID 0000-0002-4527-0827
Benjamin M KaginaVaccines for Africa Initiative, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Anzio Road, Observatory, 7925, Cape Town, Republic of South Africa.
Mark E EngelDepartment of Medicine, Groote Schuur Hospital, University of Cape Town, Main Road, Observatory, 7925, Cape Town, Republic of South Africa.
Gregory D HusseyVaccines for Africa Initiative, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Anzio Road, Observatory, 7925, Cape Town, Republic of South Africa.
University of Cape Town · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn effective vaccine against Bordetella pertussis was introduced into the Expanded Programme on Immunisation (EPI) by WHO in 1974, leading to a substantial global reduction in pertussis morbidity and mortality. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), however, the epidemiology of pertussis remains largely unknown. This impacts negatively on pertussis control strategies in these countries. This study aimed to systematically and comprehensively review published literature on the burden of laboratory-confirmed pertussis in LMICs over the 45 years of EPI.

methodsElectronic databases were searched for relevant literature (1974 to December 2018) using common and MeSH terms for pertussis. Studies using PCR, culture or paired serology to confirm Bordetella pertussis and parapertussis in symptomatic individuals were included if they had clearly defined numerators and denominators to determine prevalence and mortality rates.

resultsEighty-two studies (49,167 participants) made the inclusion criteria. All six WHO regions were represented with most of the studies published after 2010 and involving mainly upper middle-income countries (n = 63; 77%). PCR was the main diagnostic test after the year 2000. The overall median point prevalence of PCR-confirmed Bordetella pertussis was 11% (interquartile range (IQR), 5-27%), while culture-confirmed was 3% (IQR 1-9%) and paired serology a median of 17% (IQR 3-23%) over the period. On average, culture underestimated prevalence by 85% (RR = 0.15, 95% CI, 0.10-0.22) compared to PCR in the same studies. Risk of pertussis increased with HIV exposure [RR, 1.4 (95% CI, 1.0-2.0)] and infection [RR, 2.4 (95% CI, 1.1-5.1)]. HIV infection and exposure were also related to higher pertussis incidences, higher rates of hospitalisation and pertussis-related deaths. Pertussis mortality and case fatality rates were 0.8% (95% CI, 0.4-1.4%) and 6.5% (95% CI, 4.0-9.5%), respectively. Most deaths occurred in infants less than 6 months of age.

conclusionsDespite the widespread use of pertussis vaccines, the prevalence of pertussis remains high in LMIC over the last three decades. There is a need to increase access to PCR-based diagnostic confirmation in order to improve surveillance. Disease control measures in LMICs must take into account the persistent significant infant mortality and increased disease burden associated with HIV infection and exposure.

Indexed as

Bordetella pertussisDeveloping CountriesFemaleHistory, 20th CenturyHumansImmunization ProgramsMaleWhooping CoughBurdenCase fatalityHIVIncidenceLow- and middle-income countries (LMIC)MortalityPertussisPrevalence

Identifiers

PMID32854714
PMCPMC7453720
OpenAlexW3081319546

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.