Dengue virus infection in people residing in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence studies

Better knowledge of the face of the current dengue virus (DENV) epidemiology in Africa can help to implement efficient strategies to curb the burden of dengue fever. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prevalence of DENV infection in Africa. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, African Journals Online, and Africa Index Medicus from January 1st, 2000 to June 10th, 2019 without any language restriction. We used a random-effects model to pool studies. A total of 76 studies (80,977 participants; 24 countries) were included. No study had high risk of bias. Twenty-two (29%) had moderate and 54 (71%) had low risk of bias. In apparently healthy individuals, the pooled prevalence of DENV was 15.6% (95% confidence interval 9.9–22.2), 3.5% (0.8–7.8), and 0.0% (0.0–0.5) respectively for immunoglobulins (Ig) G, IgM, and for ribonucleic acid (RNA) in apparently healthy populations. In populations presenting with fever, the prevalence was 24.8% (13.8–37.8), 10.8% (3.8–20.6k) and 8.4% (3.7–14.4) for IgG, IgM, and for RNA respectively. There was heterogeneity in the distribution between different regions of Africa. The prevalence of DENV infection is high in the African continent. Dengue fever therefore deserves more attention from healthcare workers, researchers, and health policy makers.


Supplementary figures
Supplementary

4-5
Study selection 9 State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

5
Data collection process 10 Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

5
Data items 11 List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

Risk of bias in individual studies
12 Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

6
Synthesis of results 14 Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I 2 ) for each meta-analysis.

6
Risk of bias across studies 15 Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

6
Additional analyses 16 Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

RESULTS
Study selection 17 Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

7
Study characteristics 18 For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

7
Risk of bias within studies 19 Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item 12).

7
Results of individual studies 20 For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

DISCUSSION
Summary of evidence 24 Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

9
Limitations 25 Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

Supplementary Table 3. Risk of bias tool to assess methodological quality of included studies
Risk of bias items Was the study's target population a close representation of the national population in relation to relevant variables? Was the sampling frame a true or close representation of the target population? Was some form of random selection used to select the sample, OR was a census undertaken? Was the likelihood of nonresponse bias minimal? Were data collected directly from the subjects (as opposed to a proxy)? Was an acceptable case definition used in the study? Was the study instrument that measured the parameter of interest shown to have validity and reliability? Was the same mode of data collection used for all subjects? Were the numerator(s) and denominator(s) for the parameter of interest appropriate? 0-3 items: high risk of bias; 4-6: Moderate risk of bias; 7-9: low risk of bias