2018
DOI: 10.1101/423145
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Estimating the current burden of Chagas disease in Mexico: a systematic review of epidemiological surveys from 2006 to 2017

Abstract: BackgroundIn Mexico, estimates of Chagas disease prevalence and burden vary widely. Updating surveillance data is therefore an important priority to ensure that Chagas disease does not remain a barrier to the development of Mexico’s most vulnerable populations.Methodology/Principal FindingsThe aim of this systematic review was to analyze the literature on epidemiological surveys to estimate Chagas disease prevalence and burden in Mexico, during the period 2006 to 2017. A total of 2,764 articles were screened a… Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 60 publications
(40 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although it was not the aim of the present study to establish a real estimation of the number of human cases in the region for each zoonotic disease, we must mention that the human cases officially informed on the Historical Epidemiological Bulletin are probably underestimated. For instance, concerning T. cruzi infection, a noticeable difference exists between the national official prevalence (0.65%) and the estimated prevalence obtained through a metaanalysis of recent research studies (3.38%) [59].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Although it was not the aim of the present study to establish a real estimation of the number of human cases in the region for each zoonotic disease, we must mention that the human cases officially informed on the Historical Epidemiological Bulletin are probably underestimated. For instance, concerning T. cruzi infection, a noticeable difference exists between the national official prevalence (0.65%) and the estimated prevalence obtained through a metaanalysis of recent research studies (3.38%) [59].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 90%