4.5 Review

Update on the disease burden and circulating strains of rotavirus in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

VACCINE
Volume 32, Issue 35, Pages 4369-4375

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.06.018

Keywords

Rotavirus; Disease burden; Strains; China

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Rotavirus is the most common cause of severe diarrhea in children, and most associated deaths occur in developing countries. Two new internationally licensed vaccines are expected to be launched in the near future in China. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of rotavirus studies to update information on the burden of rotavirus disease in China. Materials and methods: Eligible studies published before 2011 were identified using PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, LILACS, WHOLIS, and two Chinese literature databases, CNKI, and WANFANG. Arc-sine transformations and the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects or fixed-effects models were used for meta-analysis. Results: A total of 211 studies were included in this review, of which 63 (29.9%) were inpatient studies, 26 (12.3%) were outpatient, 122 (57.8%) were combined. Community subjects were investigated in two combined studies. Rates of gastroenteritis caused by rotavirus in inpatients, outpatients, and community children were 42.6%, 32.5% and 9.3%, respectively. The most common G type was G3 (39.3%), followed by G1 (30.3%), G2 (7.2%), and G9 (3.3%). The most common P types were P[8] (50.2%), P[4] (18.2%), and P[6] (7.2%). The most prevalent G-P combinations were G3P[8] (32.1%), G1P[8] (23.0%), and G2P[4] (7.9%). Conclusion: Rotavirus is an important cause of both severe and mild diarrheal disease in children <5 years of age in China; G3P[8] is the most prevalent strain. The introduction of an effective rotavirus vaccine to Chinese pediatric immunization programs is necessary. (C) 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available