Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33901191›Full record

SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2021

Diagnostic accuracy of the WHO clinical definitions for dengue and implications for surveillance: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Nader Raafat, Shanghavie Loganathan, Mavuto Mukaka, Stuart D Blacksell, Richard James Maude

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Sentinel Enhanced Dengue Surveillance System - Puerto Rico, 2012-2022.Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries (Washington, D.C. : 2002) · 2024
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors.

Nader RaafatMahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-6452-1273
Shanghavie LoganathanOxford Medical School, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8679-4734
Mavuto MukakaMahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-5036-6583
Stuart D BlacksellMahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0001-6576-726X
Richard James MaudeMahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-5355-0562

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 106698/Z/14/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDengue is the world's most common mosquito-borne virus but remains diagnostically challenging due to its nonspecific presentation. Access to laboratory confirmation is limited and thus most reported figures are based on clinical diagnosis alone, the accuracy of which is uncertain. This systematic review assesses the diagnostic accuracy of the traditional (1997) and revised (2009) WHO clinical case definitions for dengue fever, the basis for most national guidelines. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsPubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, OpenGrey, and the annual Dengue Bulletin were searched for studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of the unmodified clinical criteria. Two reviewers (NR/SL) independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias using a modified QUADAS-2. Additional records were found by citation network analysis. A meta-analysis was done using a bivariate mixed-effects regression model. Studies that modified criteria were analysed separately. This systematic review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020165998). We identified 11 and 12 datasets assessing the 1997 and 2009 definition, respectively, and 6 using modified criteria. Sensitivity was 93% (95% CI: 77-98) and 93% (95% CI: 86-96) for the 1997 and 2009 definitions, respectively. Specificity was 29% (95% CI: 8-65) and 31% (95% CI: 18-48) for the 1997 and 2009 definitions, respectively. Diagnostic performance suffered at the extremes of age. No modification significantly improved accuracy. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Diagnostic accuracy of clinical criteria is poor, with significant implications for surveillance and public health responses for dengue control. As the basis for most reported figures, this has relevance to policymakers planning resource allocation and researchers modelling transmission, particularly during COVID-19.

Indexed as

COVID-19Databases, FactualDengueDiagnosis, DifferentialHumansSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID33901191
PMCPMC8102005

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.