ReviewBMJ global health2021
Epidemic preparedness: Prenatal Zika virus screening during the next epidemic.
Review in BMJ global health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Article
- Scaling up long-acting reversible contraception through task sharing and capacity building: an implementation science approach in Balsas, Brazil.Frontiers in global women's health · 2026Article
- CD4Vaccines · 2025Article
- The landscape of pregnancy and prepregnancy cohorts: a scoping review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- A decade later, what have we learned from the Zika epidemic in children with intrauterine exposure?Lancet (London, England) · 2025Review
- Adverse fetal and perinatal outcomes associated with Zika virus infection during pregnancy: an individual participant data meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Risk of adverse pregnancy and infant outcomes associated with prenatal Zika virus infection: a post-epidemic cohort in Central-West Brazil.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Review
- Nonhuman Primates in Translational Research.Annual review of animal biosciences · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Zika virus (ZIKV) is a vectorborne infectious agent of global public health significance due to its potential to cause severe teratogenic outcomes. The question of whether health systems should consider adopting screening programmes for ZIKV infections during pregnancy warrants consideration. In this analysis, we apply the Wilson-Jungner framework to appraise the potential utility of a prenatal ZIKV screening programme, outline potential screening strategies within the case-finding pathway, and consider other epidemiological factors that may influence the planning of such a screening programme. Our evaluation of a potential prenatal ZIKV screening programme highlights factors affirming its usefulness, including the importance of Congenital Zika Syndrome as a public health problem and the existence of analogous congenital prenatal screening programmes for STORCH agents (syphilis, toxoplasmosis, others (eg, human immunodeficiency virus, varicella-zoster virus, parvovirus B19), rubella, cytomegalovirus, and herpes simplex virus). However, our assessment also reveals key barriers to implementation, such as the need for more accurate diagnostic tests, effective antiviral treatments, increased social service capacity, and surveillance. Given that the reemergence of ZIKV is likely, we provide a guiding framework for policymakers and public health leaders that can be further elaborated and adapted to different contexts in order to reduce the burden of adverse ZIKV-related birth outcomes during future outbreaks.
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.