Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,864

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Open access
Brady, Oliver J., Gething, Peter W., Bhatt, Samir, Messina, Jane P., Brownstein, John S., Hoen, Anne G., Moyes, Catherine L., Farlow, Andrew W., Scott, Thomas W., Hay, Simon I.·2012·PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001760

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 1,864

Metadata

Authors
Brady, O. J., Gething, P. W., Bhatt, S., Messina, J. P., Brownstein, J. S., Hoen, A. G., Moyes, C. L., Farlow, A. W., Scott, T. W., & Hay, S. I.
Venue
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
Published
2012-08-07
Volume
6
Issue
8
Pages
e1760
ISSN
  • 1935-2727 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-2735
OpenAlex
W2126789944
Cited by
1,864
References
4
FWCI
40.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Refining the Global Spatial Limits of Dengue Virus Transmission by Evidence-Based Consensus. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001760
The paper
Brady, O. J., Gething, P. W., Bhatt, S., Messina, J. P., Brownstein, J. S., Hoen, A. G., Moyes, C. L., Farlow, A. W., Scott, T. W., & Hay, S. I. (2012). Refining the Global Spatial Limits of Dengue Virus Transmission by Evidence-Based Consensus. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001760

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.