ReviewRevista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health2026
Tracking human New World screwworm in the Americas: burden, spread, and knowledge gaps.
Review in Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To map the available evidence on human cases of New World screwworm across the Americas and identify guidance relevant to surveillance and management. Methods: Searches were conducted in bibliographic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Epistemonikos, Google Scholar, La Referencia, and OpenAlex), gray literature sources, and clinical trial registries. Searches were made in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. Eligible sources included peer-reviewed articles, case reports, case series, observational studies, reviews, guidelines, and technical documents addressing human infestation in the Americas. Results: From 2 332 records identified, 75 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Clinical presentations varied and included oral and maxillofacial, cutaneous and wound-associated, otic, nasal, orbital, and cervicofacial infestations. Management generally relied on prompt mechanical larval removal, wound care, and, when required, surgical debridement. Ivermectin was the most used antiparasitic treatment, although no robust comparative evidence was identified. National guidance documents broadly agreed on the importance of larval extraction, case notification, and intersectoral coordination, but differed in their clinical recommendations and the role of ivermectin. Conclusions: The available evidence is sparse, fragmented, and predominantly descriptive. The findings describe patterns in the published literature and should not be interpreted as estimates of population-level frequency or risk. Nevertheless, recurrent clinical patterns, vulnerable populations, and key public health priorities emerged and can support preparedness, surveillance, and the harmonization of guidance across the region.
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.