↓ Skip to main content

Increased mortality attributed to Chagas disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
221 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Increased mortality attributed to Chagas disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13071-016-1315-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zulma M. Cucunubá, Omolade Okuwoga, María-Gloria Basáñez, Pierre Nouvellet

Abstract

The clinical outcomes associated with Chagas disease remain poorly understood. In addition to the burden of morbidity, the burden of mortality due to Trypanosoma cruzi infection can be substantial, yet its quantification has eluded rigorous scrutiny. This is partly due to considerable heterogeneity between studies, which can influence the resulting estimates. There is a pressing need for accurate estimates of mortality due to Chagas disease that can be used to improve mathematical modelling, burden of disease evaluations, and cost-effectiveness studies. A systematic literature review was conducted to select observational studies comparing mortality in populations with and without a diagnosis of Chagas disease using the PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and LILACS databases, without restrictions on language or date of publication. The primary outcome of interest was mortality (as all-cause mortality, sudden cardiac death, heart transplant or cardiovascular deaths). Data were analysed using a random-effects model to obtain the relative risk (RR) of mortality, the attributable risk percent (ARP), and the annual mortality rates (AMR). The statistic I(2) (proportion of variance in the meta-analysis due to study heterogeneity) was calculated. Sensitivity analyses and publication bias test were also conducted. Twenty five studies were selected for quantitative analysis, providing data on 10,638 patients, 53,346 patient-years of follow-up, and 2739 events. Pooled estimates revealed that Chagas disease patients have significantly higher AMR compared with non-Chagas disease patients (0.18 versus 0.10; RR = 1.74, 95 % CI 1.49-2.03). Substantial heterogeneity was found among studies (I(2) = 67.3 %). The ARP above background mortality was 42.5 %. Through a sub-analysis patients were classified by clinical group (severe, moderate, asymptomatic). While RR did not differ significantly between clinical groups, important differences in AMR were found: AMR = 0.43 in Chagas vs. 0.29 in non-Chagas patients (RR = 1.40, 95 % CI 1.21-1.62) in the severe group; AMR = 0.16 (Chagas) vs. 0.08 (non-Chagas) (RR = 2.10, 95 % CI 1.52-2.91) in the moderate group, and AMR = 0.02 vs. 0.01 (RR = 1.42, 95 % CI 1.14-1.77) in the asymptomatic group. Meta-regression showed no evidence of study-level covariates on the effect size. Publication bias was not statistically significant (Egger's test p=0.08). The results indicate a statistically significant excess of mortality due to Chagas disease that is shared among both symptomatic and asymptomatic populations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 221 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 218 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 16%
Student > Bachelor 32 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 28 13%
Researcher 23 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 9%
Other 32 14%
Unknown 51 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 27 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 11 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 4%
Other 32 14%
Unknown 63 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 July 2023.
All research outputs
#2,534,080
of 25,145,981 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#473
of 5,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,264
of 408,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#15
of 166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,145,981 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,909 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 408,549 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 166 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.