“…Most spatial studies (96.55%, n = 56/58) produced human infection maps and most (73.21%, n = 41/56) utilized data obtained from the national disease surveillance notification systems. Maps were produced to depict incidence or prevalence in certain administrative areas (48.21%, n = 27/56) (Schneider et al, ), national ( n = 11) (Gonwong et al, ; Jansen et al, ; Lau, Clements, et al, ; Massenet, Yvon, Couteaux, & Goarant, ; Robertson et al, ; Rood et al, ; Schneider et al, ; Shi, Tu, & Li, ; Stevens, Carter, Kiep, Stevenson, & Schneeweiss, ; van Alphen et al, ; Zhao et al, ) or sub‐national scales ( n = 15) (Barcellos, Lammerhirt, de Almeida, & dos Santos, ; Barcellos & Sabroza, ; Chaiblich, Lima, Oliveira, Monken, & Penna, ; Garcia‐Ramirez et al, ; Gracie et al, ; Herbreteau et al, ; Ko, Reis, et al, ; Lau, Skelly, Dohnt, & Smythe, ; Mišić‐Majerus, ; Mohammadinia, Alimohammadi, & Saeidian, ; Mohd Radi et al, ; Myint et al, ; Schneider et al, ; Soares et al, ; Vega‐Corredor & Opadeyi, ). Twelve studies used Kernel density estimation technique (Chaiblich et al, ; Cook et al, ; de Melo et al, ; Deshmukh et al, ; Filho et al, ; Lau, Dobson, et al, .…”