Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 258

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dengue infection in India: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Ganeshkumar, Parasuraman, Murhekar, Manoj V., Poornima, Veeraraghavadoss, Saravanakumar, Velusamy, Sukumaran, Krishnendu, Anandaselvasankar, Anandan, John, Denny, Mehendale, Sanjay M.·2018·PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Dengue is the most extensively spread mosquito-borne disease; endemic in more than 100 countries. Information about dengue disease burden, its prevalence, incidence and geographic distribution is critical in planning appropriate control measures against dengue fever. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of dengue fever in India. METHODS: We searched for studies published until 2017 reporting the incidence, the prevalence or case fatality of dengue in India. Our primary outcomes were (a) prevalence of laboratory confirmed dengue infection among clinically suspected patients, (b) seroprevalence in the general population and (c) case fatality ratio among laboratory confirmed dengue patients. We used binomial-normal mixed effects regression model to estimate the pooled proportion of dengue infections. Forest plots were used to display pooled estimates. The metafor package of R software was used to conduct meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of the 2285 identified articles on dengue, we included 233 in the analysis wherein 180 reported prevalence of laboratory confirmed dengue infection, seven reported seroprevalence as evidenced by IgG or neutralizing antibodies against dengue and 77 reported case fatality. The overall estimate of the prevalence of laboratory confirmed dengue infection among clinically suspected patients was 38.3% (95% CI: 34.8%-41.8%). The pooled estimate of dengue seroprevalence in the general population and CFR among laboratory confirmed patients was 56.9% (95% CI: 37.5-74.4) and 2.6% (95% CI: 2-3.4) respectively. There was significant heterogeneity in reported outcomes (p-values<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Identified gaps in the understanding of dengue epidemiology in India emphasize the need to initiate community-based cohort studies representing different geographic regions to generate reliable estimates of age-specific incidence of dengue and studies to generate dengue seroprevalence data in the country.

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.0006618

Cites

52 of 52 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 52 references

Metadata

Authors
Ganeshkumar, P., Murhekar, M. V., Poornima, V., Saravanakumar, V., Sukumaran, K., Anandaselvasankar, A., John, D., & Mehendale, S. M.
Venue
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
Published
2018-07-16
Volume
12
Issue
7
Pages
e0006618
ISSN
  • 1935-2727 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-2735
OpenAlex
W2883541885
Cited by
258
References
52
FWCI
5.77
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: Dengue infection in India: A systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pntd.0006618
The paper
Ganeshkumar, P., Murhekar, M. V., Poornima, V., Saravanakumar, V., Sukumaran, K., Anandaselvasankar, A., John, D., & Mehendale, S. M. (2018). Dengue infection in India: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0006618

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.