Prevalence of dengue and leptospirosis coinfection and associated mortality rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dengue and leptospirosis are prominent vector-borne diseases in tropical and subtropical regions, sharing overlapping geographic distribution and clinical presentations, which complicates diagnosis and management. Co-infection of these pathogens places additional strain on healthcare resources in endemic areas. This study aims to systematically estimate the prevalence and mortality rates of dengue and leptospirosis co-infections and assess their clinical implications. METHODS: Adhering the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and registered in the PROSPERO database, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases up to October 2024. Nested Knowledge was used for screening and data extraction. Studies reporting quantitative data on the prevalence or mortality of dengue and leptospirosis co-infections were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers using the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Statistical analyses, including prevalence and mortality estimation, sensitivity analysis were conducted using R, with heterogeneity evaluated by the I² statistic. RESULTS: Out of 3,982 records, 14 studies met the eligibility criteria, yielding a pooled prevalence of dengue and leptospirosis co-infection at 2.33% (95% CI: 1.41-3.46%) across 16,638 participants, with significant heterogeneity (I² = 90%). The prediction interval for co-infection ranged from 0.05 to 7.27%. The pooled mortality rate among co-infected patients was 9.96% (95% CI: 0-53.49%), with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 71%). The prediction interval for mortality ranged from 0.00 to 100%. Publication bias was indicated by an LFK index of 2.52. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis revealed a moderate prevalence and a notable mortality rate for dengue and leptospirosis co-infections, with significant variability observed across different studies. Further research into the immunopathology and the implementation of integrated surveillance systems could enhance the effectiveness of diagnosis and treatment strategies in regions where these diseases are endemic.
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 | 0.017 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.048 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".