Mapping the global distribution of Buruli ulcer: a systematic review with evidence consensus.
Journal
The Lancet. Global health
ISSN: 2214-109X
Titre abrégé: Lancet Glob Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101613665
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2019
07 2019
Historique:
received:
13
12
2018
revised:
15
02
2019
accepted:
25
03
2019
entrez:
16
6
2019
pubmed:
16
6
2019
medline:
27
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Buruli ulcer can cause disfigurement and long-term loss of function. It is underdiagnosed and under-reported, and its current distribution is unclear. We aimed to synthesise and evaluate data on Buruli ulcer prevalence and distribution. We did a systematic review of Buruli ulcer prevalence and used an evidence consensus framework to describe and evaluate evidence for Buruli ulcer distribution worldwide. We searched PubMed and Web of Science databases from inception to Aug 6, 2018, for records of Buruli ulcer and Mycobacterium ulcerans detection, with no limits on study type, publication date, participant population, or location. English, French, and Spanish language publications were included. We included population-based surveys presenting Buruli ulcer prevalence estimates, or data that allowed prevalence to be estimated, in the systematic review. We extracted geographical data on the occurrence of Buruli ulcer cases and M ulcerans detection from studies of any type for the evidence consensus framework; articles that did not report original data were excluded. For the main analysis, we extracted prevalence estimates from included surveys and calculated 95% CIs using Byar's method. We included occurrence records, reports to WHO and the Global Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology Network, and surveillance data from Buruli ulcer control programmes in the evidence consensus framework to grade the strength of evidence for Buruli ulcer endemicity. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018116260. 2763 titles met the search criteria. We extracted prevalence estimates from ten studies and occurrence data from 208 studies and five unpublished surveillance datasets. Prevalence estimates within study areas ranged from 3·2 (95% CI 3·1-3·3) cases per 10 000 population in Côte d'Ivoire to 26·9 (23·5-30·7) cases per 10 000 population in Benin. There was evidence of Buruli ulcer in 32 countries and consensus on presence in 12. The global distribution of Buruli ulcer is uncertain and potentially wider than currently recognised. Our findings represent the strongest available evidence on Buruli ulcer distribution so far and have many potential applications, from directing surveillance activities to informing burden estimates. AIM Initiative.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Buruli ulcer can cause disfigurement and long-term loss of function. It is underdiagnosed and under-reported, and its current distribution is unclear. We aimed to synthesise and evaluate data on Buruli ulcer prevalence and distribution.
METHODS
We did a systematic review of Buruli ulcer prevalence and used an evidence consensus framework to describe and evaluate evidence for Buruli ulcer distribution worldwide. We searched PubMed and Web of Science databases from inception to Aug 6, 2018, for records of Buruli ulcer and Mycobacterium ulcerans detection, with no limits on study type, publication date, participant population, or location. English, French, and Spanish language publications were included. We included population-based surveys presenting Buruli ulcer prevalence estimates, or data that allowed prevalence to be estimated, in the systematic review. We extracted geographical data on the occurrence of Buruli ulcer cases and M ulcerans detection from studies of any type for the evidence consensus framework; articles that did not report original data were excluded. For the main analysis, we extracted prevalence estimates from included surveys and calculated 95% CIs using Byar's method. We included occurrence records, reports to WHO and the Global Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology Network, and surveillance data from Buruli ulcer control programmes in the evidence consensus framework to grade the strength of evidence for Buruli ulcer endemicity. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018116260.
FINDINGS
2763 titles met the search criteria. We extracted prevalence estimates from ten studies and occurrence data from 208 studies and five unpublished surveillance datasets. Prevalence estimates within study areas ranged from 3·2 (95% CI 3·1-3·3) cases per 10 000 population in Côte d'Ivoire to 26·9 (23·5-30·7) cases per 10 000 population in Benin. There was evidence of Buruli ulcer in 32 countries and consensus on presence in 12.
INTERPRETATION
The global distribution of Buruli ulcer is uncertain and potentially wider than currently recognised. Our findings represent the strongest available evidence on Buruli ulcer distribution so far and have many potential applications, from directing surveillance activities to informing burden estimates.
FUNDING
AIM Initiative.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31200890
pii: S2214-109X(19)30171-8
doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30171-8
pmc: PMC6614043
mid: EMS83482
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e912-e922Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 201900
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 201900/Z/16/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/J01477X/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Références
Bull Soc Pathol Exot. 2001 Mar;94(1):46-51
pubmed: 11346983
BMJ. 2001 Aug 11;323(7308):307-10
pubmed: 11498486
Emerg Infect Dis. 2002 Feb;8(2):167-70
pubmed: 11897068
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004 May;70(5):520-6
pubmed: 15155984
Clin Infect Dis. 2005 Jan 1;40(1):123-6
pubmed: 15614701
Trop Med Int Health. 2005 Sep;10(9):863-71
pubmed: 16135193
Med Trop (Mars). 2005 Sep;65(4):334-8
pubmed: 16548484
Trop Med Int Health. 2007 Jan;12(1):89-96
pubmed: 17207152
Med J Aust. 2007 Jul 2;187(1):63-4
pubmed: 17605722
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2009 Jun 23;3(6):e466
pubmed: 19547747
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2010 Jul 20;4(7):e751
pubmed: 20652033
Med Trop (Mars). 2010 Aug;70(4):379-83
pubmed: 22368938
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(8):e1760
pubmed: 22880140
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013 Jun 13;7(6):e2252
pubmed: 23785529
Med Sante Trop. 2013 May 1;23(2):231-2
pubmed: 24001648
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013 Dec 05;7(12):e2563
pubmed: 24340112
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 21;9(2):e89407
pubmed: 24586755
Elife. 2014 Jun 27;3:null
pubmed: 24972829
Parasit Vectors. 2014 Jul 22;7:326
pubmed: 25053392
Parasit Vectors. 2014 Oct 11;7:466
pubmed: 25303991
Lancet Glob Health. 2015 Jun;3(6):e324-31
pubmed: 26001576
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Apr 14;10(4):e0004603
pubmed: 27078028
Dermatology. 2016;232(6):752-759
pubmed: 28253508
Mhealth. 2017 Mar 15;3:8
pubmed: 28567405
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018 Mar 1;12(3):e0006324
pubmed: 29494642
J Med Microbiol. 1973 Aug;6(3):405-8
pubmed: 4199273
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1993 Nov-Dec;87(6):644-5
pubmed: 8296362