4.5 Review

Systematic review and meta-analysis of respiratory syncytial virus infection epidemiology in Latin America

期刊

REVIEWS IN MEDICAL VIROLOGY
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 76-89

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/rmv.1775

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Latin America
  2. Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a frequent cause of acute respiratory infection and the most common cause of bronchiolitis in infants. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to obtain a comprehensive epidemiological picture of the data available on disease burden, surveillance, and use of resources in Latin America. Pooled estimates are useful for cross-country comparisons. Data from published studies reporting patients with probable or confirmed RSV infection in medical databases and gray literature were included from 74 studies selected from the 291 initially identified. When considering all countries, the largest pooled percentage RSV in low respiratory tract infection patients was found in the group between 0 and 11months old, 41.5% (95% CI 32.0-51.4). In all countries, percentages were increasingly lower as older children were included in the analyses. The pooled percentage of RSV in LRTIs in the elderly people was 12.6 (95% CI 4.2-24.6). The percentage of RSV infection in hospitalized newborns was 40.9% (95% CI 28.28-54.34). The pooled case fatality ratio for RSV infection was 1.74% (95% CI 1.2-2.4) in the first 2years of life. The average length of stay excluding intensive care unit admissions among children with risk factors for severe disease was 12.8 (95% CI 8.9-16.7) days, whereas it averaged 7.3 (95% CI 6.1/8.5) days in otherwise healthy children. We could conclude that infants in their first year of age were the most vulnerable population. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review on RSV disease burden and use of health resources in Latin America. Copyright (c) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据