ArticleNature communications2025
Estimating transmissibility of Zika virus in Colombia in the presence of surveillance bias.
Article in Nature communications, 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.
- A sex-biased response of the adult brain to Zika virus infection: from down-regulation of neuronal IRF3 to enhanced pathology in adult female mice.Cell communication and signaling : CCS · 2026Article
- Beyond iodine nutrition: socioeconomic patterns independently drive thyroid disease risk in pregnant women in Xinjiang.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The 2015-2016 Zika virus outbreak in the Americas presented significant challenges in understanding the transmission dynamics due to substantial reporting biases, as women of reproductive age (15-39 years) were disproportionately represented in the surveillance data when public awareness of relationship between Zika and microcephaly increased. Using national surveillance data from Colombia during July 27, 2015-November 21, 2016, we developed a Bayesian hierarchical modeling framework to reconstruct the true numbers of symptomatic cases and estimate transmission parameters while accounting for differential reporting across age-sex groups. Our model revealed that the detection rate of symptomatic cases among women of reproductive age was 99% (95% CI: 98.7-100), compared to 85.4% (95% CI: 84.7-86.1) in other demographic groups. After correcting for these biases, our results showed that females aged 15-39 years remained 82.8% (95% CI: 80.2-85.2%) more susceptible to Zika symptomatic infection than males of the same age, independent of differential reporting areas. Departments with medium-high altitude, medium-high population density, low coverage of forest, or high dengue incidence from 2011-2015 exhibited greater Zika risk. This study underscores the importance of accounting for surveillance biases in epidemiological studies to better understand factors influencing Zika transmission and to inform disease control and prevention.
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.