ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia2026
Epidemiology of Kyasanur forest disease in India, 2000-2025: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Kyasanur forest disease (KFD) is a tick-borne viral haemorrhagic fever that has recently expanded beyond its historically endemic focus in Shimoga district, Karnataka, India. Robust estimates of disease burden, distribution and clinical manifestations remain limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate pooled KFD positivity, case-fatality rates and to characterise the distribution and clinical features of KFD across India. Methods: Four databases including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase along with grey literature (Google Scholar) were searched (January 1, 2000-January 15, 2025). Non-English publications, studies published prior to 2000, reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, seropositivity assessments, and investigations restricted to diagnostic test comparisons were excluded. Eligible studies included those evaluating KFD diagnostic positivity among clinically suspected patients, tick and non-human primate infectivity, outbreak investigations, symptoms, and mortality. Following duplicate removal, study quality was verified utilising NIH Quality Assessment Tool, resulting in exclusion of poor-quality papers. Primary outcomes, diagnostic positivity among clinically suspected KFD patients and case fatality ratio (CFR), were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis with logit transformation. PROSPERO registration: CRD42024621971. Findings: Of the records screened, 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of 18 studies included 7907 suspected patients with 1431 individuals tested positive, yielding a 21% pooled diagnostic positivity rate (95% CI: 14-30). Positivity varied substantially by district. Of 2798 cumulative cases, specific gender details were available for 1422, comprising 738 females and 684 males. The pooled CFR was 4% (95% CI: 2-8). KFDV circulation in ticks was reported in 11 studies (3466 tick pools tested, 116 positive), predominantly Interpretation: KFD has spread significantly from its initial origin to neighbouring states, and intensifying surveillance of new foci is critical. Monkeys appear to seed new foci for KFD, while ticks are responsible for sustaining transmission. Early diagnosis and case management can significantly improve patient outcomes. 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.