ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024
Use of Digital Tools in Arbovirus Surveillance: Scoping Review.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Vector-Borne Infections in Romania: From Surveillance to Prediction.Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Early Warning of Infectious Disease Outbreaks Using Social Media and Digital Data: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe development of technology and information systems has led to important changes in public health surveillance.
objectiveThis scoping review aimed to assess the available evidence and gather information about the use of digital tools for arbovirus (dengue virus [DENV], zika virus [ZIKV], and chikungunya virus [CHIKV]) surveillance.
methodsThe databases used were MEDLINE, SCIELO, LILACS, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and EMBASE. The inclusion criterion was defined as studies that described the use of digital tools in arbovirus surveillance. The exclusion criteria were defined as follows: letters, editorials, reviews, case reports, series of cases, descriptive epidemiological studies, laboratory and vaccine studies, economic evaluation studies, and studies that did not clearly describe the use of digital tools in surveillance. Results were evaluated in the following steps: monitoring of outbreaks or epidemics, tracking of cases, identification of rumors, decision-making by health agencies, communication (cases and bulletins), and dissemination of information to society).
resultsOf the 2227 studies retrieved based on screening by title, abstract, and full-text reading, 68 (3%) studies were included. The most frequent digital tools used in arbovirus surveillance were apps (n=24, 35%) and Twitter, currently called X (n=22, 32%). These were mostly used to support the traditional surveillance system, strengthening aspects such as information timeliness, acceptability, flexibility, monitoring of outbreaks or epidemics, detection and tracking of cases, and simplicity. The use of apps to disseminate information to society (P=.02), communicate (cases and bulletins; P=.01), and simplicity (P=.03) and the use of Twitter to identify rumors (P=.008) were statistically relevant in evaluating scores. This scoping review had some limitations related to the choice of DENV, ZIKV, and CHIKV as arboviruses, due to their clinical and epidemiological importance.
conclusionsIn the contemporary scenario, it is no longer possible to ignore the use of web data or social media as a complementary strategy to health surveillance. However, it is important that efforts be combined to develop new methods that can ensure the quality of information and the adoption of systematic measures to maintain the integrity and reliability of digital tools' data, considering ethical aspects.
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.