Global knowledge gaps in acute febrile illness etiologic investigations: A scoping review.
Background Acute febrile illness (AFI), a common reason for people seeking medical care globally, represents a spectrum of infectious disease etiologies with important variations geographically and by population. There is no standardized approach to conducting AFI etiologic investigations, limiting...
| Published in: | PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2019
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007792 https://doaj.org/article/b95447fa0bbf437fb33eb4779286fab9 |
| Summary: | Background Acute febrile illness (AFI), a common reason for people seeking medical care globally, represents a spectrum of infectious disease etiologies with important variations geographically and by population. There is no standardized approach to conducting AFI etiologic investigations, limiting interpretation of data in a global context. We conducted a scoping review to characterize current AFI research methodologies, identify global research gaps, and provide methodological research standardization recommendations. Methodology/findings Using pre-defined terms, we searched Medline, Embase, and Global Health, for publications from January 1, 2005-December 31, 2017. Publications cited in previously published systematic reviews and an online study repository of non-malarial febrile illness etiologies were also included. We screened abstracts for publications reporting on human infectious disease, aimed at determining AFI etiology using laboratory diagnostics. One-hundred ninety publications underwent full-text review, using a standardized tool to collect data on study characteristics, methodology, and laboratory diagnostics. AFI case definitions between publications varied: use of self-reported fever as part of case definitions (28%, 53/190), fever cut-off value (38·0°C most commonly used: 45%, 85/190), and fever measurement site (axillary most commonly used: 19%, 36/190). Eighty-nine publications (47%) did not include exclusion criteria, and inclusion criteria in 13% (24/190) of publications did not include age group. No publications included study settings in Southern Africa, Micronesia & Polynesia, or Central Asia. We summarized standardized reporting practices, specific to AFI etiologic investigations that would increase inter-study comparability. Conclusions Wider implementation of standardized AFI reporting methods, with multi-pathogen disease detection, could improve comparability of study findings, knowledge of the range of AFI etiologies, and their contributions to the global AFI burden. These ... |
|---|