ArticleBMJ public health2026
Henipavirus evidence gaps: a Rapid Research Needs Appraisal.
Article in BMJ public health, 2026. 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Henipaviruses have been identified as priority pathogens by the WHO for research and development. We applied a rapid research needs appraisal (RRNA) review methodology to systematically identify existing henipavirus evidence on clinical characteristics, immune response, transmission, risk factors, medical countermeasures and associated social and behavioural factors, to inform research prioritisation, and strategies to strengthen our preparedness and response for henipaviruses to protect populations and improve outcomes. Method: We searched PubMed, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos from 1974 to 15 May 2025 for studies focused on henipavirus infection including humans or human samples. Two reviewers screened studies and extracted data across predefined research domains without language restrictions. Data were analysed descriptively. Results: Of 106 records included, most focused on Nipah (82.1%, 87/106), followed by Hendra (17.9%, 19/106) and Langya virus (1.9%, 2/106) disease, set in Asia (82.1%, 87/106), Australia (17.9%, 19/106) and Europe (0.9%, 1/106). Most (96.2%, 102/106) were observational, 3.8% (4/106) interventional studies. Adults were included in 76.4% (81/106) studies, children in 32.1% (34/106); pregnant women in 0.9% (1/106). Studies focused on clinical characteristics (n=59), transmission (n=28), risk factors (n=16), social science (n=17), diagnostics (n=14), immune response (n=9), and therapeutics (n=4). Of the four interventional studies, two focused on medical countermeasures, including a non-randomised controlled Nipah ribavirin study and a phase I m102.4 antibody Nipah and Hendra treatment trial in adults. Two were social science studies: one a self-instruction prevention training module, the other a workshop on personal protective equipment. Human vaccine studies were lacking, but nine studies explored attitudes to vaccination of horses against Hendra virus. Conclusion: Our data highlight the limited evidence available and the lack of medical countermeasures for henipaviruses. The gaps in inclusion of high-risk populations (young children, pregnant women) are concerning. Our data show a need to identify effective medical countermeasures, supported by behavioural studies, and to invest in One Health studies to generate evidence to inform strategies to protect societies against the threat of henipaviruses.
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.