Cargando…

Prevalence of asymptomatic Zika virus infection: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review to estimate the prevalence of asymptomatic Zika virus infection in the general population and in specific population groups. METHODS: We searched PubMed®, Embase® and LILACS online databases from inception to 26 January 2018. We included observational epidem...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Haby, Michelle M, Pinart, Mariona, Elias, Vanessa, Reveiz, Ludovic
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: World Health Organization 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996208/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29904223
http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.17.201541
_version_ 1783330794230513664
author Haby, Michelle M
Pinart, Mariona
Elias, Vanessa
Reveiz, Ludovic
author_facet Haby, Michelle M
Pinart, Mariona
Elias, Vanessa
Reveiz, Ludovic
author_sort Haby, Michelle M
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review to estimate the prevalence of asymptomatic Zika virus infection in the general population and in specific population groups. METHODS: We searched PubMed®, Embase® and LILACS online databases from inception to 26 January 2018. We included observational epidemiological studies where laboratory testing was used to confirm positive exposure of participants to Zika virus and in which Zika virus symptom status was also recorded. We excluded studies in which having symptoms of Zika virus was a criterion for inclusion. The main outcome assessed was percentage of all Zika virus-positive participants who were asymptomatic. We used a quality-effects approach and the double arcsine transformation for the meta-analysis. FINDINGS: We assessed 753 studies for inclusion, of which 23 were included in the meta-analysis, totalling 11 305 Zika virus-positive participants. The high degree of heterogeneity in the studies (I(2) = 99%) suggests that the pooled prevalence of asymptomatic Zika virus-positive participants was probably not a robust estimate. Analysis based on subgroups of the population (general population, returned travellers, blood donors, adults with Guillain–Barré syndrome, pregnant women and babies with microcephaly) was not able to explain the heterogeneity. Funnel and Doi plots showed major asymmetry, suggesting selection bias or true heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Better-quality research is needed, using standardized methods, to determine the true prevalence of asymptomatic Zika virus and whether it varies between populations or over time.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5996208
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher World Health Organization
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59962082018-06-14 Prevalence of asymptomatic Zika virus infection: a systematic review Haby, Michelle M Pinart, Mariona Elias, Vanessa Reveiz, Ludovic Bull World Health Organ Systematic Reviews OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review to estimate the prevalence of asymptomatic Zika virus infection in the general population and in specific population groups. METHODS: We searched PubMed®, Embase® and LILACS online databases from inception to 26 January 2018. We included observational epidemiological studies where laboratory testing was used to confirm positive exposure of participants to Zika virus and in which Zika virus symptom status was also recorded. We excluded studies in which having symptoms of Zika virus was a criterion for inclusion. The main outcome assessed was percentage of all Zika virus-positive participants who were asymptomatic. We used a quality-effects approach and the double arcsine transformation for the meta-analysis. FINDINGS: We assessed 753 studies for inclusion, of which 23 were included in the meta-analysis, totalling 11 305 Zika virus-positive participants. The high degree of heterogeneity in the studies (I(2) = 99%) suggests that the pooled prevalence of asymptomatic Zika virus-positive participants was probably not a robust estimate. Analysis based on subgroups of the population (general population, returned travellers, blood donors, adults with Guillain–Barré syndrome, pregnant women and babies with microcephaly) was not able to explain the heterogeneity. Funnel and Doi plots showed major asymmetry, suggesting selection bias or true heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Better-quality research is needed, using standardized methods, to determine the true prevalence of asymptomatic Zika virus and whether it varies between populations or over time. World Health Organization 2018-06-01 2018-04-27 /pmc/articles/PMC5996208/ /pubmed/29904223 http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.17.201541 Text en (c) 2018 The authors; licensee World Health Organization. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution IGO License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/legalcode), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In any reproduction of this article there should not be any suggestion that WHO or this article endorse any specific organization or products. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article's original URL.
spellingShingle Systematic Reviews
Haby, Michelle M
Pinart, Mariona
Elias, Vanessa
Reveiz, Ludovic
Prevalence of asymptomatic Zika virus infection: a systematic review
title Prevalence of asymptomatic Zika virus infection: a systematic review
title_full Prevalence of asymptomatic Zika virus infection: a systematic review
title_fullStr Prevalence of asymptomatic Zika virus infection: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Prevalence of asymptomatic Zika virus infection: a systematic review
title_short Prevalence of asymptomatic Zika virus infection: a systematic review
title_sort prevalence of asymptomatic zika virus infection: a systematic review
topic Systematic Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996208/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29904223
http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.17.201541
work_keys_str_mv AT habymichellem prevalenceofasymptomaticzikavirusinfectionasystematicreview
AT pinartmariona prevalenceofasymptomaticzikavirusinfectionasystematicreview
AT eliasvanessa prevalenceofasymptomaticzikavirusinfectionasystematicreview
AT reveizludovic prevalenceofasymptomaticzikavirusinfectionasystematicreview