Prevalence of and risk factors for Plasmodium spp. co-infection with hepatitis B virus: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Plasmodium spp. and hepatitis B virus (HBV) are among the most common infectious diseases in underdeveloped countries. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection in people living in endemic areas of both diseases and to assess the risk factors related to this co-infection. Methods The PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched. Observational cross-sectional studies and retrospective studies assessing the prevalence of Plasmodium species and HBV co-infection were examined. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), a tool for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses, and heterogeneity among the included studies was assessed with Cochran's Q test and the I 2 (inconsistency) statistic. The pooled prevalence of the co-infection and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using the random-effects model, depending on the amount of heterogeneity there was among the included studies. The pooled odds ratio (OR) represented the difference in qualitative variables, whereas the pooled mean difference (MD) represented the difference in quantitative variables. Meta-analyses of the potential risk factors for Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection, including patient age and gender, were identified and represented as pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% CIs. Publication bias among the included studies was assessed by visual inspection of a funnel plot to search for asymmetry. Results Twenty-two studies were included in the present systematic review and meta-analysis. Overall, the pooled prevalence estimate of Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection was 6% (95% CI 4–7%, Cochran's Q statistic < 0.001, I 2 : 95.8%), with prevalences of 10% in Gambia (95% CI: 8–12%, weight: 4.95%), 8% in Italy (95% CI 5–12%, weight: 3.8%), 7% in Nigeria (95% CI 4–10%, weight: 53.5%), and 4% in Brazil (95% CI 2–5%, weight: 19.9%). The pooled prevalence estimate of Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection was higher in studies published before 2015 (7%, 95% CI 4–9%, Cochran's Q statistic < 0.001, I 2 : 96%) than in those published since 2015 (3%, 95% CI 1–5%, Cochran's Q statistic < 0.001, I 2 : 81.3%). No difference in age and risk of Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection group was found between the Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection and the Plasmodium monoinfection group (p: 0.48, OR: 1.33, 95% CI 0.60–2.96). No difference in gender and risk of Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection group was found between the Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection and HBV co-infection group and the Plasmodium monoinfection group (p: 0.09, OR: 2.79, 95% CI 0.86–9.10). No differences in mean aspartate aminotransferase (AST), mean alanine aminotransferase (ALT), or mean total bilirubin levels were found (p > 0.05) between the Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection group and the Plasmodium monoinfection group. Conclusions The present study revealed the prevalence of Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection, which will help in understanding co-infection and designing treatment strategies. Future studies assessing the interaction between Plasmodium spp. and HBV are recommended.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".