4.7 Review

Infectious causes of microcephaly: epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management

期刊

LANCET INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 E1-E13

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30398-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
  2. Royal Society, Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowship
  3. NIHR [SRF-2011-04-001, NF-SI-0616-10037]
  4. NIHR UCL/UCLH Biomedical Research Centre
  5. European Union's Horizon research and innovation programme under Zika-PLAN [734584]
  6. MRC [MC_PC_15088] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Medical Research Council [MC_PC_15088] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. National Institute for Health Research [CL-2015-18-004] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. Action Medical Research [2424] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microcephaly is an important sign of neurological malformation and a predictor of future disability. The 2015-16 outbreak of Zika virus and congenital Zika infection brought the world's attention to links between Zika infection and microcephaly. However, Zika virus is only one of the infectious causes of microcephaly and, although the contexts in which they occur vary greatly, all are of concern. In this Review, we summarise important aspects of major congenital infections that can cause microcephaly, and describe the epidemiology, transmission, clinical features, pathogenesis, management, and long-term consequences of these infections. We include infections that cause substantial impairment: cytomegalovirus, herpes simplex virus, rubella virus, Toxoplasma gondii, and Zika virus. We highlight potential issues with classification of microcephaly and show how some infants affected by congenital infection might be missed or incorrectly diagnosed. Although Zika virus has brought the attention of the world to the problem of microcephaly, prevention of all infectious causes of microcephaly and appropriately managing its consequences remain important global public health priorities.

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

4.7
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