The Impact of Diagnostic Delays and Timeliness of Response on Ebola Disease outbreak-level case-fatality Ratios in Uganda (2000-2023): a Rapid Systematic Review and meta-analysis.

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health Pub Date : 2025-11-11 DOI:10.1007/s44197-025-00471-1
George Paasi, Sam Okware, Peter Olupot-Olupot
{"title":"The Impact of Diagnostic Delays and Timeliness of Response on Ebola Disease outbreak-level case-fatality Ratios in Uganda (2000-2023): a Rapid Systematic Review and meta-analysis.","authors":"George Paasi, Sam Okware, Peter Olupot-Olupot","doi":"10.1007/s44197-025-00471-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Uganda has experienced seven laboratory-confirmed Ebola virus disease (EBOD) outbreaks from 2000 to 2022, with reported case-fatality ratios (CFRs) varying widely. The influence of diagnostic and response delays on outbreak-level mortality has not been systematically assessed. We conducted a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the effect of diagnostic and response delays on outbreak-level mortality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We registered the review on OSF and adhered to PRISMA-2020 guidelines. We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, WHO Global Index Medicus, and grey literature through 30 April 2025. Eligible reports described laboratory-confirmed human EBOD in Uganda (2000-2022) and reported case counts, deaths, or quantitative timeliness metrics. Outbreak-level CFRs were meta-analyzed using random-effects models with Freeman-Tukey transformation (metafor package in R). Mixed-effects meta-regression assessed the association between continuous delay metrics and transformed CFR.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen reports met inclusion criteria, spanning 741 confirmed cases and 358 deaths. The pooled CFR was 45.4% (95% CI: 26.2%-65.2%; I² = 87.8%) across seven outbreaks. By species, Sudan ebolavirus outbreaks (n = 5) had a CFR of 44.6% (95% CI: 33.7%-55.6%), Bundibugyo ebolavirus (n = 1) 24.8% (95% CI: 18.2%-32.1%), and Zaire ebolavirus (n = 1) 100% (95% CI: 61.2%-100.0%). In meta-regression, each additional day from first case report to specimen collection was associated with a significant increase in CFR (β = 0.142 on the transformed scale; p = 0.025; R² = 62%), translating to an approximate absolute increase of 3.8% points in CFR per day at a baseline risk of 45%. Conversely, longer delays from symptom onset in the index case to national outbreak declaration were linked to a slight decrease in CFR (β = - 0.00765; p = 0.047).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Uganda's EBOD outbreaks exhibit high and variable mortality, with diagnostic delays substantially amplifying case-fatality. Rapid specimen collection and prompt public health responses are critical to reducing EBOD mortality. Strengthening laboratory networks and accelerating declaration protocols should be central to future outbreak preparedness in Uganda and similar contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":15796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health","volume":"15 1","pages":"130"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12605935/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s44197-025-00471-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Uganda has experienced seven laboratory-confirmed Ebola virus disease (EBOD) outbreaks from 2000 to 2022, with reported case-fatality ratios (CFRs) varying widely. The influence of diagnostic and response delays on outbreak-level mortality has not been systematically assessed. We conducted a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the effect of diagnostic and response delays on outbreak-level mortality.

Methods: We registered the review on OSF and adhered to PRISMA-2020 guidelines. We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, WHO Global Index Medicus, and grey literature through 30 April 2025. Eligible reports described laboratory-confirmed human EBOD in Uganda (2000-2022) and reported case counts, deaths, or quantitative timeliness metrics. Outbreak-level CFRs were meta-analyzed using random-effects models with Freeman-Tukey transformation (metafor package in R). Mixed-effects meta-regression assessed the association between continuous delay metrics and transformed CFR.

Results: Fifteen reports met inclusion criteria, spanning 741 confirmed cases and 358 deaths. The pooled CFR was 45.4% (95% CI: 26.2%-65.2%; I² = 87.8%) across seven outbreaks. By species, Sudan ebolavirus outbreaks (n = 5) had a CFR of 44.6% (95% CI: 33.7%-55.6%), Bundibugyo ebolavirus (n = 1) 24.8% (95% CI: 18.2%-32.1%), and Zaire ebolavirus (n = 1) 100% (95% CI: 61.2%-100.0%). In meta-regression, each additional day from first case report to specimen collection was associated with a significant increase in CFR (β = 0.142 on the transformed scale; p = 0.025; R² = 62%), translating to an approximate absolute increase of 3.8% points in CFR per day at a baseline risk of 45%. Conversely, longer delays from symptom onset in the index case to national outbreak declaration were linked to a slight decrease in CFR (β = - 0.00765; p = 0.047).

Conclusions: Uganda's EBOD outbreaks exhibit high and variable mortality, with diagnostic delays substantially amplifying case-fatality. Rapid specimen collection and prompt public health responses are critical to reducing EBOD mortality. Strengthening laboratory networks and accelerating declaration protocols should be central to future outbreak preparedness in Uganda and similar contexts.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
诊断延迟和反应及时性对乌干达埃博拉病爆发水平病死率的影响(2000-2023):快速系统评价和荟萃分析
背景:从2000年到2022年,乌干达经历了7次实验室确认的埃博拉病毒病暴发,报告的病死率(CFRs)差异很大。诊断和反应延迟对暴发水平死亡率的影响尚未得到系统评估。我们进行了一项快速系统回顾和荟萃分析,以量化诊断和反应延迟对爆发级死亡率的影响。方法:我们注册了OSF审查并遵守PRISMA-2020指南。我们检索了PubMed、Embase、Scopus、Web of Science、WHO Global Index Medicus和2025年4月30日之前的灰色文献。合格的报告描述了乌干达(2000-2022年)实验室确认的人EBOD以及报告的病例数、死亡人数或定量及时性指标。使用带有Freeman-Tukey转换的随机效应模型(R中的元包)对爆发级CFRs进行meta分析。混合效应元回归评估了连续延迟指标与转换后的CFR之间的关系。结果:15份报告符合纳入标准,涵盖741例确诊病例和358例死亡。在7次暴发中,合并CFR为45.4% (95% CI: 26.2%-65.2%; I²= 87.8%)。按物种划分,苏丹埃博拉病毒暴发(n = 5)的CFR为44.6% (95% CI: 33.7%-55.6%),本迪布乔埃博拉病毒暴发(n = 1)的CFR为24.8% (95% CI: 18.2%-32.1%),扎伊尔埃博拉病毒暴发(n = 1)的CFR为100% (95% CI: 61.2%-100.0%)。在meta回归中,从第一例病例报告到标本采集每增加一天,CFR显著增加(在转换量表上β = 0.142; p = 0.025; R²= 62%),在基线风险为45%的情况下,CFR每天大约绝对增加3.8%。相反,从指示病例出现症状到国家宣布疫情的较长延迟与CFR略有下降有关(β = - 0.00765; p = 0.047)。结论:乌干达的EBOD暴发表现出高且多变的死亡率,诊断延误大大增加了病死率。快速标本采集和迅速的公共卫生反应对于降低EBOD死亡率至关重要。加强实验室网络和加快宣布协议应该是乌干达和类似情况下未来疫情准备工作的核心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
1.40%
发文量
57
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health is an esteemed international publication, offering a platform for peer-reviewed articles that drive advancements in global epidemiology and international health. Our mission is to shape global health policy by showcasing cutting-edge scholarship and innovative strategies.
期刊最新文献
Place of Death for People with Life-Limiting Illnesses in Malaysia: Trends (2005-2019) and Projections to 2030. HIV/AIDS in Conflict-Affected Countries, 2024-2025. Understanding Mortality Data: A Step-by-Step Guide to CDC WONDER, Joinpoint Analysis, and Forecasting Models. Incidence and Predictors of Mortality Among Adults on Antiretroviral Therapy in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The Reemergence of Congenital Syphilis-Maternal and Fetal Risks and Consequences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1