The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prevalence of Chagas Disease in Latin-American Migrants Living in Europe: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed the burden of Chagas disease in non-endemic countries and most of them are based on prevalence estimates from Latin American (LA) countries that likely differ from the prevalence in migrants living in Europe. The aim of this study was to systematically review the existing data informing current understanding of the prevalence of Chagas disease in LA migrants living in European countries. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting prevalence of Chagas disease in European countries belonging to the European Union (EU) before 2004 in accordance with the MOOSE guidelines and based on the database sources MEDLINE and Global Health. No restrictions were placed on study date, study design or language of publication. The pooled prevalence was estimated using random effect models based on DerSimonian & Laird method. RESULTS: We identified 18 studies conducted in five European countries. The random effect pooled prevalence was 4.2% (95%CI:2.2-6.7%); and the heterogeneity of Chagas disease prevalence among studies was high (I2 = 97%,p<0.001). Migrants from Bolivia had the highest prevalence of Chagas disease (18.1%, 95%CI:13.9-22.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of Chagas in LA migrants living in Europe is high, particularly in migrants from Bolivia and Paraguay. Data are highly heterogeneous dependent upon country of origin and within studies of migrants from the same country of origin. Country-specific prevalence differs from the estimates available from LA countries. Our meta-analysis provides prevalence estimates of Chagas disease that should be used to estimate the burden of disease in European countries.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Dermyshi, E., Wang, Y., Yan, C., Hong, W., Qiu, G., Gong, X., & Zhang, T. (2017) · Neonatology · doi:10.1159/000454668 · Cited by 24,451
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
Rassi, A., Rassi, A., & Marin-Neto, J. A. (2010) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(10)60061-x · Cited by 2,119
Migration and health in an increasingly diverse Europe
Rechel, B., Mladovsky, P., Ingleby, D., Mackenbach, J. P., & McKee, M. (2013) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(12)62086-8 · Cited by 888
Chagas disease in Spain, the United States and other non-endemic countries
Gascon, J., Bern, C., & Pinazo, M.-J. (2010) · Acta Tropica · doi:10.1016/j.actatropica.2009.07.019 · Cited by 601
Self-citationAlonso‐Vega, C., Billot, C., & Torrico, F. (2013) · PLoS neglected tropical diseases · doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0002304 · Cited by 86
Metadata
- Authors
- Requena-Méndez, A., Aldasoro, E., de Lazzari, E., Sicuri, E., Brown, M., Moore, D. A. J., Gascon, J., & Muñoz, J.
- Venue
- PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2015-02-13
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e0003540
- ISSN
- 1935-2727 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-2735
- OpenAlex
- W2156224401
- Cited by
- 363
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 4.82
- 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: Prevalence of Chagas Disease in Latin-American Migrants Living in Europe: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pntd.0003540
- The paper
- Requena-Méndez, A., Aldasoro, E., de Lazzari, E., Sicuri, E., Brown, M., Moore, D. A. J., Gascon, J., & Muñoz, J. (2015). Prevalence of Chagas Disease in Latin-American Migrants Living in Europe: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0003540
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.