The epidemiologic and economic burden of dengue in Singapore: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite its well-regarded vector control program, Singapore remains susceptible to dengue epidemics. To assist evaluation of dengue interventions, we aimed to synthesize current data on the epidemiologic and economic burden of dengue in Singapore. METHODOLOGY: We used multiple databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, international/national repositories, surveillance) to search for published and gray literature (2000-2022). We included observational and cost studies, and two interventional studies, reporting Singapore-specific data on our co-primary outcomes, dengue incidence and dengue-related costs. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and an adapted cost-of-illness evaluation checklist. We performed a narrative synthesis and grouped studies according to reported outcomes and available stratified analyses. FINDINGS: In total, 333 reports (330 epidemiological, 3 economic) were included. Most published epidemiological studies (89%) and all economic studies were of good quality. All gray literature reports were from the Ministry of Health or National Environment Agency. Based predominantly on surveillance data, Singapore experienced multiple outbreaks in 2000-2021, attaining peak incidence rate in 2020 (621.1 cases/100,000 person-years). Stratified analyses revealed the highest incidence rates in DENV-2 and DENV-3 serotypes and the 15-44 age group. Among dengue cases, the risk of hospitalization has been highest in the ≥45-year-old age groups while the risks of dengue hemorrhagic fever and death have generally been low (both <1%) for the last decade. Our search yielded limited data on deaths by age, severity, and infection type (primary, secondary, post-secondary). Seroprevalence (dengue immunoglobulin G) increases with age but has remained <50% in the general population. Comprising 21-63% indirect costs, dengue-related total costs were higher in 2010-2020 (SGD 148 million) versus the preceding decade (SGD 58-110 million). CONCLUSION: Despite abundant passive surveillance data, more stratified and up-to-date data on the epidemiologic and economic burden of dengue are warranted in Singapore to continuously assess prevention and management strategies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".