MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116834729 · doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0013853

Burden of scabies in displacement settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis among forcibly displaced populations

2025· article· en· W7116834729 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gelila Yitageasu, Angwach Abrham Asnake, Alemayehu Kasu Gebrehana, Bizunesh Fantahun Kase, Hiwot Altaye Asebe, Mitkie Tigabie, Lidetu Demoze

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatological diseases and infestations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScabiesDisplaced personDisplacement (psychology)Internally displaced personTransmission (telecommunications)Global healthNeglected tropical diseases

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: By the end of 2024, an estimated 123.2 million people were forcibly displaced due to conflict and persecution, with 80% residing in low- and middle-income countries. Scabies, a neglected tropical disease affecting around 200 million people globally and causing over 455 million new cases annually, disproportionately affects displaced populations due to overcrowding, poor hygiene, and limited healthcare access. However, global evidence on its prevalence among these groups remains inconsistent. This study aimed to estimate the global pooled prevalence of scabies among forcibly displaced populations. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Epistemonikos, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Embase for studies published up to May 28, 2025, supplemented by hand-searches using Google and Google Scholar to capture any additional relevant studies. Data were extracted using Microsoft Excel 2021 and analyzed with STATA version 17. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Only studies that met the predefined inclusion criteria were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assessed study quality. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled prevalence. Heterogeneity was measured using the Galbraith plot and the I2 statistic, while publication bias with funnel plots and Egger's regression test. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251067217). RESULTS: Fourteen studies with 76,664 participants were included. The global pooled prevalence of scabies was 15% (I2 = 99.87%). Prevalence varies by region, study setting, population group, and data collection method. Prevalence was highest in Asia (25%), followed by Europe (13%) and Africa (7%). Refugees showed the highest prevalence (23%), compared to IDPs (13%), asylum seekers (2%), and refugee-asylum seekers (2%). Among population groups, prevalence was highest in combined adult-child populations (66%), patients (24%), and school-aged children (15%), women and children under 15 years (6%), the general population (2%), and unaccompanied minors (1%). Studies using both clinical exams and Questionnaires reported a higher prevalence (27%) than those using clinical exams alone (14%) and interviews or physical examination only (3% and 2%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Scabies poses a significant health (15%) burden among forcibly displaced populations. Integrated interventions, including screening, treatment, WASH programs, and improved surveillance, are urgently needed to reduce transmission and improve health outcomes in displacement settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS neglected tropical diseasesSame topicDermatological diseases and infestationsFrench-language works237,207