Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34788280›Full record

SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2021

Gender-related differences in prevalence, intensity and associated risk factors of Schistosoma infections in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Diepreye Victoria Ayabina, Jessica Clark, Helena Bayley, Poppy H L Lamberton, Jaspreet Toor, T Deirdre Hollingsworth

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 55 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Epidemiology ofParasite epidemiology and control · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors.

Diepreye Victoria AyabinaBig Data Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Jessica ClarkBig Data Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1692-899X
Helena BayleyDepartment of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Poppy H L LambertonInstitute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1048-6318
Jaspreet ToorBig Data Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1510-397X
T Deirdre HollingsworthBig Data Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5962-4238

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/P025447/1Medical Research Council MR/R015600/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSchistosomiasis remains a global-health problem with over 90% of its burden concentrated in Africa. Field studies reflect the complex ways in which socio-cultural and socio-economic variables, affect the distribution of Schistosoma infections across different populations. This review set out to systematically investigate and quantify the differences in Schistosoma infection burdens between males and females in Africa for two of the most prevalent Schistosoma species-Schistosoma mansoni and Schistosoma haematobium. METHODOLOGY: We searched (from inception to 11th March 2020) Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Web of Science for relevant studies on schistosomiasis. We included studies that report S. mansoni and/or S. haematobium prevalence and/or intensity data distributed between males and females. We conducted meta-analyses on the male to female (M:F) prevalence of infection ratios. Subgroup analyses were performed according to study baseline prevalence, sample size and the lower and upper age limit of study participants. We also present a descriptive analysis of differential risk and intensity of infection across males and females. Evidence for differences in the prevalence of schistosomiasis infection between males and females is presented, stratified by Schistosoma species.

resultWe identified 128 relevant studies, with over 200,000 participants across 23 countries. Of all the reported differences in the prevalence of infection between males and females, only 41% and 34% were statistically significant for S. mansoni and S. haematobium, respectively. Similar proportions of studies (27% and 34% for for S. haematobium and S. mansoni, respectively) of the reported differences in intensity of infection between males and females were statistically significant. The meta-analyses summarized a higher prevalence of infection in males; pooled random-effects weighted M:F prevalence of infection ratios were 1.20 (95% CI 1.11-1.29) for S. haematobium and 1.15 (95% CI 1.08-1.22) for S. mansoni. However, females are underrespresented in some of the studies. Additionally, there was significant heterogeneity across studies (Higgins I2 statistic (p-values < 0.001, I2values>95%)). Results of the subgroup analysis showed that the baseline prevalence influenced the M:F prevalence ratios for S. haematobium and S. mansoni, with higher M:F prevalence of infection ratios in settings with a lower baseline prevalence of infection. Across the studies, we identified four major risk factors associated with infection rates: occupational and recreational water contact, knowledge, socio-economic factors and demographic factors. The effect of these risk factors on the burden of infection in males and females varied across studies.

conclusionsWe find evidence of differences in prevalence of infection between males and females which may reflect differences in gender norms and water contact activities, suggesting that policy changes at the regional level may help ameliorate gender-related disparities in schistosomiasis infection burden. Collecting, robustly analysing, and reporting, sex-disaggregated epidemiological data, is currently lacking, but would be highly informative for planning effective treatment programmes and establishing those most at risk of schistosomiasis infections.

Indexed as

Sex FactorsAfricaAnimalsFemaleHumansMaleRisk FactorsSchistosoma haematobiumSchistosoma mansoniSchistosomiasis haematobiaSchistosomiasis mansoni

Identifiers

PMID34788280
PMCPMC8635327

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.