ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026
Global burden of dengue on healthcare systems: a meta-analysis of healthcare resource utilisation.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dengue poses an increasing health challenge, yet contemporary global healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU) data remain limited. Methods: A systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis of studies published 2013-2026 was conducted to estimate hospitalisation rate (HR) and length of stay (LOS) for dengue. Pooled proportions and means were analysed with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) under fixed- and random-effects models globally and by region. Meta-regression models estimated potential sources of heterogeneity. Additionally, sensitivity (excluding sample sizes <100, >50,000, and >50,000 and <100) and subgroup analyses were conducted for disease severity, patient characteristics, and region (PROSPERO# CRD42023480948). Findings: Of 341 studies included in the SLR, studies reporting HR (121) and LOS (204) were prioritised for analysis. Global HR among patients with dengue, irrespective of severity, was 36.7% (95% CI 29.0-44.4), under the random-effects model. HR was higher for severe versus non-severe dengue (79.4% [55.9-92.2] versus 26.6% [19.3-35.4]), with versus without warning signs (36.9% [23.3-52.9] versus 17.7% [10.2-28.9]), and in Asia versus Latin America (35.1% [18.0-57.2] versus 29.3% [18.4-43.2]). Global mean LOS among hospitalised patients with dengue, irrespective of severity, was 4.9 days (95% CI 4.6-5.2) under the random-effects model. Severe dengue had longer LOS versus non-severe dengue (6.5 [5.4-7.7] versus 4.6 [4.3-4.9] days), especially for patients with versus without comorbidities (6.1 [5.1-7.2] versus 5.1 [4.3-5.9] days), and in Asia versus Latin America (5.1 [4.8-5.5] versus 4.1 [3.4-4.7] days). Meta-regression showed disease severity was the single significant factor (p < 0.0001) associated with high HR and longer LOS (I Interpretation: Due to high heterogeneity between studies and interregional differences, pooled estimates should be interpreted with caution. These findings indicate the considerable burden of dengue driven by HCRU, offering valuable insights for health system preparedness, clinical trial design, and policy planning. Funding: Novartis Pharma AG.
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.