4.6 Review

Aetiological role of common respiratory viruses in acute lower respiratory infections in children under five years: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL HEALTH
卷 5, 期 1, 页码 122-131

出版社

INT SOC GLOBAL HEALTH
DOI: 10.7189/jogh.05.010408

关键词

-

资金

  1. China Scholarship Council
  2. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1088499]
  3. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1088499] Funding Source: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Acute lower respiratory infection (ALRI) remains a major cause of childhood hospitalization and mortality in young children and the causal attribution of respiratory viruses in the aetiology of ALRI is unclear. We aimed to quantify the absolute effects of these viral exposures. Methods We conducted a systematic literature review (across 7 databases) of case-control studies published from 1990 to 2014 which investigated the viral profile of 18592 children under 5 years with and without ALRI. We then computed a pooled odds ratio and virus-specific attributable fraction among the exposed of 8 common viruses-respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza (IFV), parainfluenza (PIV), human metapneumovirus (MPV), adenovirus (AdV), rhinovirus (RV), bocavirus (BoV), and coronavirus (CoV). Findings From the 23 studies included, there was strong evidence for causal attribution of RSV (OR 9.79; AFE 90%), IFV (OR 5.10; AFE 80%), PIV (OR 3.37; AFE 70%) and MPV (OR 3.76; AFE 73%), and less strong evidence for RV (OR 1.43; AFE 30%) in young children presenting with ALRI compared to those without respiratory symptoms (asymptomatic) or healthy children. However, there was no significant difference in the detection of AdV, BoV, or CoV in cases and controls. Conclusions This review supports RSV, IFV, PIV, MPV and RV as important causes of ALRI in young children, and provides quantitative estimates of the absolute proportion of virus-associated ALRI cases to which a viral cause can be attributed

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

4.6
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