IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pntd00/0001760.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Refining the Global Spatial Limits of Dengue Virus Transmission by Evidence-Based Consensus

Author

Listed:
  • Oliver J Brady
  • Peter W Gething
  • Samir Bhatt
  • Jane P Messina
  • John S Brownstein
  • Anne G Hoen
  • Catherine L Moyes
  • Andrew W Farlow
  • Thomas W Scott
  • Simon I Hay

Abstract

Background: Dengue is a growing problem both in its geographical spread and in its intensity, and yet current global distribution remains highly uncertain. Challenges in diagnosis and diagnostic methods as well as highly variable national health systems mean no single data source can reliably estimate the distribution of this disease. As such, there is a lack of agreement on national dengue status among international health organisations. Here we bring together all available information on dengue occurrence using a novel approach to produce an evidence consensus map of the disease range that highlights nations with an uncertain dengue status. Methods/Principal Findings: A baseline methodology was used to assess a range of evidence for each country. In regions where dengue status was uncertain, additional evidence types were included to either clarify dengue status or confirm that it is unknown at this time. An algorithm was developed that assesses evidence quality and consistency, giving each country an evidence consensus score. Using this approach, we were able to generate a contemporary global map of national-level dengue status that assigns a relative measure of certainty and identifies gaps in the available evidence. Conclusion: The map produced here provides a list of 128 countries for which there is good evidence of dengue occurrence, including 36 countries that have previously been classified as dengue-free by the World Health Organization and/or the US Centers for Disease Control. It also identifies disease surveillance needs, which we list in full. The disease extents and limits determined here using evidence consensus, marks the beginning of a five-year study to advance the mapping of dengue virus transmission and disease risk. Completion of this first step has allowed us to produce a preliminary estimate of population at risk with an upper bound of 3.97 billion people. This figure will be refined in future work. Author Summary: Previous attempts to map the current global distribution of dengue virus transmission have produced variable results, particularly in Africa, reflecting the lack of accuracy in both diagnostic and locational information of reported dengue cases. In this study, instead of excluding these less informed points we included them with appropriate uncertainty alongside other diverse evidence forms. After assembling a comprehensive database of different evidence types, a weighted scoring system calculated “evidence consensus” for each country a continuous measure of the certainty of dengue presence or absence when considering the full aggregate of evidence. The resulting map and analysis helped highlight important evidence gaps that underlie uncertainties in the current distribution of dengue. We also show the importance of local knowledge through incorporating questionnairebased responses that can help add clarity in uncertain regions. This analysis showed that presence/absence maps do not sufficiently highlight the uncertainties in the evidence base used to construct them. Mapping by evidence consensus not only encourages greater data inclusion, but it also better illustrates the current global distribution of dengue. Consensus mapping is thus ideal for a range of neglected tropical diseases where the evidence base is incomplete or less diagnostically reliable.

Suggested Citation

  • Oliver J Brady & Peter W Gething & Samir Bhatt & Jane P Messina & John S Brownstein & Anne G Hoen & Catherine L Moyes & Andrew W Farlow & Thomas W Scott & Simon I Hay, 2012. "Refining the Global Spatial Limits of Dengue Virus Transmission by Evidence-Based Consensus," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-15, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0001760
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001760
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0001760
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0001760&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001760?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0001760. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosntds (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.