Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32859209›Full record

SynthesisMalaria journal2020

Epidemiology of clinical congenital and neonatal malaria in endemic settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Celestin Danwang, Jean Joel Bigna, Rolf Nyah Tuku Nzalie, Annie Robert

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Malaria journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Malaria.The New England journal of medicine · 2025
    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.

Celestin DanwangEpidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium. danram07@yahoo.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7976-4331
Jean Joel BignaDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Centre Pasteur of Cameroon, Yaoundé, Cameroon.
Rolf Nyah Tuku NzalieSchool of Public Health, University of Buea, Buea, Cameroon.
Annie RobertEpidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn order to attain the objectives set out in the global technical strategy against malaria 2016-2030, it is important to have accurate epidemiological data on malaria in all age categories, including those which are often neglected because of an apparent low burden of disease. The current systematic review with meta-analysis synthesizes the epidemiology of clinical congenital and neonatal malaria in endemic areas.

methodsPubMed, EMBASE, Global Index Medicus, and Web of Science were searched up to 30th October 2019, to identify observational studies reporting on congenital (0-7 days) and neonatal (0-28 days) malaria. No restriction related to language was applied. Study selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment were performed independently by two investigators. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool prevalence data. Prevalence were adjusted taking into account the variance due to diagnostic method and regional distribution. Subgroup analyses were performed to identify sources of heterogeneity in case of substantial heterogeneity. This review was registered in PROSPERO with number CRD42020150124.

resultsThe bibliographical search identified 1,961 studies, of which 22 were finally retained with a total population of 28,083 neonates. The overall crude prevalence of clinical congenital malaria was 40.4‰ (95%CI 19.6-67.7; 17 studies). The adjusted prevalence considering the variance due to difference in region/country (hierarchical model) was 33.7‰ (95%CI 6.9-77.2). There was no difference between the prevalence of clinical congenital malaria in Africa 39.5‰ (95%CI 17.2-59.5; 15 studies) and outside Africa 56.3‰ (95%CI 0.0-406.1), p = 0.867. The overall crude prevalence of clinical neonatal malaria was 12.0‰ (95%CI 1.4-30.3; 12 studies), and the adjusted one (considering the variance due to diagnostic method and the region/country) was 12.9‰ (95%CI 0.1-39.7). There was no difference between the prevalence of clinical neonatal malaria in Africa 12.1‰ (95%CI 1.3-31.2; 11 studies) and outside Africa 12.5‰ (95%CI 0.0-52.9), p = 0.802.

conclusionThis study suggests a high prevalence of clinical congenital and neonatal malaria. It calls for an intensification of preventive measures against malaria during pregnancy and in the neonatal period, and to consider neonates as a distinct age category in the elaboration of malaria treatment and prevention guidelines.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansInfant, NewbornMalariaMalePregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsPrevalenceEpidemiologyMalariaNeonatesReview

Identifiers

PMID32859209
PMCPMC7456021

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.