Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38696416›Full record

ArticleJournal of travel medicine2024

Discrepancies in dengue burden estimates: a comparative analysis of reported cases and global burden of disease study, 2010-2019.

Sin Yee Lee, Hsin-I Shih, Wei-Cheng Lo, Tsung-Hsueh Lu, Yu-Wen Chien

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of travel medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A Review of the Changing Global Impact of Arthropod-Borne Virus Diseases and Recent Initiatives from the World Health Organization.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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

5 authors.

Sin Yee LeeDepartment of Public Health, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, No. 1, University Road, Tainan 701, Taiwan.
Hsin-I ShihDepartment of Emergency Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, No. 138, Sheng Li Road, Tainan 704, Taiwan.
Wei-Cheng LoMaster Program in Applied Epidemiology, College of Public Health, Taipei Medical University, No. 301, Yuantong Road, Zhonghe District, New Taipei City 235, Taiwan.
Tsung-Hsueh LuDepartment of Public Health, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, No. 1, University Road, Tainan 701, Taiwan.
Yu-Wen ChienDepartment of Public Health, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, No. 1, University Road, Tainan 701, Taiwan.

Funding

National Cheng Kung University Hospital NCKUH-11303004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDengue is a significant mosquito-borne disease. Several studies have utilized estimates from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study to assess the global, regional or national burden of dengue over time. However, our recent investigation suggests that GBD's estimates for dengue cases in Taiwan are unrealistically high. The current study extends the scope to compare reported dengue cases with GBD estimates across 30 high-burden countries and territories, aiming to assess the accuracy and interpretability of the GBD's dengue estimates.

methodsData for this study were sourced from the GBD 2019 study and various national and international databases documenting reported dengue cases. The analysis targeted the top 30 countries and territories with the highest 10-year average of reported cases from 2010 to 2019. Discrepancies were quantified by computing absolute differences and ratios between the 10-year average of reported cases and GBD estimates. Coefficients of variation (CV) and estimated annual percentage changes (EAPCs) were calculated to assess variations and trends in the two data sources.

resultsSignificant discrepancies were noted between reported data and GBD estimates in the number of dengue cases, incidence rates, and EAPCs. GBD estimates were substantially higher than reported cases for many entities, with the most notable differences found in China (570.0-fold), India (303.0-fold), Bangladesh (115.4-fold), Taiwan (85.5-fold) and Indonesia (23.2-fold). Furthermore, the GBD's estimates did not accurately reflect the extensive yearly fluctuations in dengue outbreaks, particularly in non-endemic regions such as Taiwan, China and Argentina, as evidenced by high CVs.

conclusionsThis study reveals substantial discrepancies between GBD estimates and reported dengue cases, underscoring the imperative for comprehensive analysis in areas with pronounced disparities. The failure of GBD estimates to represent the considerable annual fluctuations in dengue outbreaks highlights the critical need for improvement in disease burden estimation methodologies for dengue.

Indexed as

DengueGlobal Burden of DiseaseGlobal HealthHumansIncidenceDenguedengue virusglobal burden of disease studyincidencereported data

Identifiers

PMID38696416
PMCPMC11149719

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.