Early warning systems (EWSs) for chikungunya, dengue, malaria, yellow fever, and Zika outbreaks: What is the evidence? A scoping review.
Background Early warning systems (EWSs) are of increasing importance in the context of outbreak-prone diseases such as chikungunya, dengue, malaria, yellow fever, and Zika. A scoping review has been undertaken for all 5 diseases to summarize existing evidence of EWS tools in terms of their structura...
| Published in: | PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2021
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009686 https://doaj.org/article/e9e70b83ea0c45ffaa23b1de994d718e |
| Summary: | Background Early warning systems (EWSs) are of increasing importance in the context of outbreak-prone diseases such as chikungunya, dengue, malaria, yellow fever, and Zika. A scoping review has been undertaken for all 5 diseases to summarize existing evidence of EWS tools in terms of their structural and statistical designs, feasibility of integration and implementation into national surveillance programs, and the users' perspective of their applications. Methods Data were extracted from Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Google Scholar, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), PubMed, Web of Science, and WHO Library Database (WHOLIS) databases until August 2019. Included were studies reporting on (a) experiences with existing EWS, including implemented tools; and (b) the development or implementation of EWS in a particular setting. No restrictions were applied regarding year of publication, language or geographical area. Findings Through the first screening, 11,710 documents for dengue, 2,757 for Zika, 2,706 for chikungunya, 24,611 for malaria, and 4,963 for yellow fever were identified. After applying the selection criteria, a total of 37 studies were included in this review. Key findings were the following: (1) a large number of studies showed the quality performance of their prediction models but except for dengue outbreaks, only few presented statistical prediction validity of EWS; (2) while entomological, epidemiological, and social media alarm indicators are potentially useful for outbreak warning, almost all studies focus primarily or exclusively on meteorological indicators, which tends to limit the prediction capacity; (3) no assessment of the integration of the EWS into a routine surveillance system could be found, and only few studies addressed the users' perspective of the tool; (4) almost all EWS tools require highly skilled users with advanced statistics; and (5) spatial prediction remains a limitation with no tool currently able to map high transmission areas ... |
|---|