ReviewHealth science reports2025
Dengue Investigation Research in Bangladesh: Insights From a Scoping Review.
Review in Health science reports, 2025. 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.
- Epidemiological Trends, Public Health Challenges, and Strategic Control Priorities of Dengue in Bangladesh (2000-2024): A Narrative Review.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Seroprevalence of Dengue, Chikungunya, and Zika Viruses Among Febrile Patients in Dhaka, Bangladesh: A Hospital-Based Cross-Sectional Study.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
Background and Aims: A more accurate assessment of the disease's incidence and fatality rate over the previous years could help with future outbreak detection and containment. Therefore, this scoping review was conducted to compile the results of research on dengue investigation in Bangladesh in terms of knowledge, attitudes, and practices; risk factors; clinical presentations; and stereotypes of dengue. Methods: The final analysis included 27 studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria. The PRISMA 2020 guidelines served as the basis for data extraction. All included articles were retrieved from PubMed, BanglaJOL, Google Scholar, Embase, Web Sciences, Cochrane Library, and other databases up to October, 2024. The quality of included studies in terms of relevance, reliability, validity, and applicability was also evaluated. Results: The present study recorded a moderate understanding of dengue infection among slum dwellers and people in rural areas due to a lack of knowledge about it. Insufficient practices regarding dengue fever were also found among them. However, the differences in perception regarding dengue infection were observed in different parts of Dhaka city. Additionally, between 2017 and 2022, different dengue serotypes were the most common at various times. The potential risk factors included monsoon sessions (July to September), static water, scrapyards, and indoor plants; urbanization; population density; being outside in the morning and evening; sleeping during the day; and so forth. Along with the common symptoms of dengue, hematological abnormalities such as thrombocytopenia and leukopenia, as well as elevated levels of ALT and AST, were observed in Bangladeshi dengue patients. Conclusions: Knowledge gap, moderate understanding, insufficient practices regarding dengue infection among slum dwellers and rural people, and varieties in dengue serotypes are the main obstacles to control the dengue outbreak. Therefore, it is essential to undertake several preventive measures to reduce the dengue infection and also understand the dengue serotypes.
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.