ReviewHealth science reports2026
Performance of Routine Disease Surveillance in Sub-Saharan Africa (2010-2024): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Core Reporting and Detection Indicators.
Review in Health science reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Public health surveillance systems are essential for early detection and control of outbreaks. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the performance of routine disease surveillance systems in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), focusing on reporting completeness, timeliness, detection and reporting of suspected cases of diseases under surveillance. Methods: We searched PubMed and reference lists for studies published between 2010 and 2024 reporting surveillance indicators in SSA. Studies were included if they reported at least one of the following surveillance indicators: reporting completeness, timeliness, detection rate or reporting rate of suspected cases. A random-effects meta-analysis estimating pooled reporting completeness and timeliness was conducted. Narrative synthesis was used for detection and reporting indicators. Results: Twenty-eight studies were included, and 10 contributed to the meta-analysis. The pooled reporting completeness was 81.97%, and pooled timeliness was 71.27%. Trends suggested improvement in reporting completeness and timeliness over time, with higher performance at the national level. Detection and reporting of suspected cases of diseases under surveillance lacked quantitative estimation in the included studies. However, narrative evidence pointed to under-detection and under-reporting of diseases under surveillance. Investigation of alerts varied widely, often constrained by weak infrastructure and limited laboratory capacity. Conclusion: The reporting completeness and timeliness are relatively high across SSA while significant gaps remain in the detection and notification of suspected cases. Future research should focus on standardizing and measuring detection and investigation indicators to improve the region's capacity for early warning and epidemic response.
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.