ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Epidemiological characteristics of Group A rotavirus diarrhea in children under 5 years old in China from 2009 to 2020.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGroup A rotavirus (RVA) is a leading cause of childhood diarrhea globally. Despite its status as a reportable infectious diarrhea in China, comprehensive and specific national RVA surveillance data remain scarce. This study analyzed the National Science and Technology Major Project (NSTMP) database (2009-2020) to characterize RVA epidemiology in Chinese children under 5 presenting with diarrhea.
methodsRVA detection data from children under 5 with diarrhea were analyzed from the NSTMP database. Positivity rates and genotype spatiotemporal distribution were assessed using descriptive epidemiology. Temporal trends were evaluated with Joinpoint regression; significance of differences was assessed using chi-square tests.
resultsThe overall positivity rate of RVA among children under 5 years old in China was 28.7% (15,945/55,637). The positivity rate in males (29.3%) was higher than that in females (27.6%). Positive cases were concentrated in children aged 6-23 months (70.4%, 11,231/15,945), with the highest positivity rate (35.5%, 6059/17,090) observed in the children aged 12-23 months. Joinpoint regression analysis revealed a sharp decline in the positivity rate of RVA from a baseline of 49.9% in 2009 to 23.1% in 2011, with an annual percent change (APC) of -31.9% (p = 0.04). Subsequently, between 2011 and 2020, the rate remained stable, showing no statistically significant change in trend (APC = -1.1%, p = 0.901). Additionally, the highest positivity rate of RVA was observed in winter (46.5%), while the lowest was recorded in summer (14.0%). Geographically, the highest positivity rate of RVA were observed in the central region (41.6%), while the eastern region exhibited the lowest positivity rate (20.0%) among the four regions in China. Furthermore, the distribution of genotypes exhibited geographical variation, with the proportions of the dominant G3, G9, and P[8] genotypes being lower in the eastern region than that in the central and western regions. Conversely, the P[4] genotype was more prevalent in the eastern region. As for the combination genotype, G9P[8] has increased markedly and become predominant circulating genotype.
conclusionRVA positivity rate in Chinese children under 5 declined significantly during 2009-2011 and subsequently stabilized, demonstrating distinct age, seasonal, and regional patterns with geographically variable dominant genotypes. Sustained surveillance is crucial to track evolving epidemiology and guide evidence-based vaccination strategies. CLINICAL TRIAL: Not applicable.
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.