4.3 Article

Temporal trends of dengue cases and deaths from 2007 to 2020 in Belo Horizonte, Brazil

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09603123.2023.2237420

关键词

time-series; arbovirus; vulnerability; epidemic; prediction; >

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed the temporal trends of dengue cases and deaths in Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil from 2007 to 2020. The findings showed an increasing number of dengue cases and deaths, highlighting the importance of vector surveillance and control measures.
Dengue, a disease with multifactorial determinants, is linked to population susceptibility to circulating viruses and the extent of vector infestation. This study aimed to analyze the temporal trends of dengue cases and deaths in Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil, from 2007 to 2020. Data from the Notifiable Diseases Information System (Sinan) were utilized for the investigation. To assess the disease's progression over the study period and predict its future incidence, time series analyses were conducted using a generalized additive model (GAM) and a seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average (SARIMA) model. Over the study period, a total of 463,566 dengue cases and 125 deaths were reported. Notably, there was an increase in severe cases and deaths, marking hyperendemics characterized by simultaneous virus circulation (79.17% in 2016-50% in 2019). The generalized additive model revealed a non-linear pattern with epidemic peaks in 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019, indicating an explosive pattern of dengue incidence. The SARIMA (3,1,1) (0,0,0)12 model was validated for each year (2015 to 2019). Comparing the actual and predicted numbers of dengue cases, the model demonstrated its effectiveness for predicting cases in the municipality. The rising number of dengue cases emphasizes the importance of vector surveillance and control. Enhanced models and predictions by local health services will aid in anticipating necessary control measures to combat future epidemics.

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

4.3
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