ArticlePloS one2022
A retrospective 5-year review of rubella in South Africa prior to the introduction of a rubella-containing vaccine.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The evolving landscape of rubella in the WHO African Region.The Pan African medical journal · 2025Article
- Rubella epidemiology in Lesotho after vaccine introduction: a five-year review, 2018-2022.BMC public health · 2024Article
- On the Path to Measles and Rubella Elimination Following Rubella-Containing Vaccine Introduction, 2000-2023, Namibia.Vaccines · 2024Article
- Virome-wide detection of natural infection events and the associated antibody dynamics using longitudinal highly-multiplexed serology.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Measles incidence in South Africa: a six-year review, 2015-2020.BMC public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
South Africa has yet to introduce a rubella-containing vaccine (RCV) into its Expanded Programme on Immunisation (EPI). Here we evaluated the incidence of laboratory-confirmed rubella and congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) cases over the years 2015 to 2019, to document the epidemiology of rubella and CRS within South Africa prior to a RCV introduction. This retrospective study evaluated the number of laboratory-confirmed rubella cases reported through the national febrile rash surveillance system. A positive test for rubella immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies was considered a confirmed rubella case. For CRS cases, we reported laboratory-confirmed CRS cases collected from 28 sentinel-sites from all nine provinces of South Africa. From 2015-2019, 19 773 serum samples were tested for rubella IgM antibodies, 6 643 (33.6%) were confirmed rubella cases. Rubella was seasonal, with peaks in spring (September to November). Case numbers were similar between males (n = 3 239; 50.1%) and females (n = 3 232; 49.9%). The highest burden of cases occurred in 2017 (n = 2 526; 38%). The median age was 5 years (IQR: 3-7 years). Importantly, of females with rubella, 5.0% (161 of 3 232) of the cases were among women of reproductive age (15-44 years). A total of 62 CRS cases were reported, the mortality rate was 12.9% (n = 8), and the most common birth defect was congenital heart disease. In conclusion, rubella is endemic in South Africa. Children below the age of 10 years were the most affected, however, rubella was also reported among women of reproductive age. The baseline data represented here provides insight into the burden of rubella and CRS in South Africa prior to the introduction of a RCV, and can enable planning of RCV introduction into the South African EPI.
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.