ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026
Post-acute sequelae after Nipah virus infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Nipah virus was first detected in the 1998-1999 Malaysia outbreak and remains a significant public health concern due to its high epidemic potential and recurrent outbreaks in South Asia. Incidence patterns of post-acute sequelae, characterised by persistence or delayed onset after the acute phase of an infection, are not well documented after infectious disease outbreaks. We aimed to address this knowledge gap. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence, incidence, duration, and characteristics of post-acute sequelae in survivors of Nipah virus infection. We searched PubMed and Web of Science for studies published in English between database inception and Nov 17, 2025. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were peer-reviewed and reported primary data on post-acute sequelae in survivors of Nipah virus infection. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis for all outcomes reported in at least two studies, and assessed heterogeneity qualitatively and using the I Findings: Our search identified 1091 articles after deduplication, of which eight were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review and six in the meta-analysis. Study populations included hospitalised Nipah encephalitis survivors and total survivors of Nipah virus infection in three and five articles, respectively. Only one study included a healthy control group. Three articles were of high, four of moderate and one of low quality. We extracted prevalence for 34 potential neurological, psychiatric or non-specific post-acute sequelae. The pooled prevalence of total residual neurological deficits was 24% (95% CI 9-49; I Interpretation: These findings demonstrate a substantial long-term disease burden following Nipah virus infection, which should be accounted for in mathematical modelling studies. However, estimates were based on very limited data mainly from the Malaysia/Singapore outbreak. Additional limitations relate to subjective outcome assessment and heterogeneous populations of total Nipah infection survivors, which could have biased our estimates or affected their generalisability. Further research is needed in the Bangladeshi and Indian setting, where current outbreaks occur and are caused by a different viral strain. Funding: None.
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.