Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Confl Health. 2010 November 8; Volume 4 (Issue 17); DOI:10.1186/1752-1505-4-17
Alberti KP, Grellety E, Lin YD, Polonsky JA, Coppens K, et al.
Confl Health. 2010 November 8; Volume 4 (Issue 17); DOI:10.1186/1752-1505-4-17
BACKGROUND
The province of North Kivu in the Democratic Republic of Congo has been afflicted by conflict for over a decade. After months of relative calm, offences restarted in September 2008. We did an epidemiological study to document the impact of violence on the civilian population and orient pre-existing humanitarian aid.
METHODS
In May 2009, we conducted three cross-sectional surveys among 200 000 resident and displaced people in North Kivu (Kabizo, Masisi, Kitchanga). The recall period covered an eight month period from the beginning of the most recent offensives to the survey date. Heads of households provided information on displacement, death, violence, theft, and access to fields and health care.
RESULTS
Crude mortality rates (per 10 000 per day) were below emergency thresholds: Kabizo 0.2 (95% CI: 0.1-0.4), Masisi 0.5 (0.4-0.6), Kitchanga 0.7 (0.6-0.9). Violence was the reported cause in 39.7% (27/68) and 35.8% (33/92) of deaths in Masisi and Kitchanga, respectively. In Masisi 99.1% (897/905) and Kitchanga 50.4% (509/1020) of households reported at least one member subjected to violence. Displacement was reported by 39.0% of households (419/1075) in Kitchanga and 99.8% (903/905) in Masisi. Theft affected 87.7% (451/514) of households in Masisi and 57.4% (585/1019) in Kitchanga. Access to health care was good: 93.5% (359/384) of the sick in Kabizo, 81.7% (515/630) in Masisi, and 89.8% (651/725) in Kitchanga received care, of whom 83.0% (298/359), 87.5% (451/515), and 88.9% (579/651), respectively, did not pay.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results show the impact of the ongoing war on these civilian populations: one third of deaths were violent in two sites, individuals are frequently subjected to violence, and displacements and theft are common. While humanitarian aid may have had a positive impact on disease mortality and access to care, the population remains exposed to extremely high levels of violence.
The province of North Kivu in the Democratic Republic of Congo has been afflicted by conflict for over a decade. After months of relative calm, offences restarted in September 2008. We did an epidemiological study to document the impact of violence on the civilian population and orient pre-existing humanitarian aid.
METHODS
In May 2009, we conducted three cross-sectional surveys among 200 000 resident and displaced people in North Kivu (Kabizo, Masisi, Kitchanga). The recall period covered an eight month period from the beginning of the most recent offensives to the survey date. Heads of households provided information on displacement, death, violence, theft, and access to fields and health care.
RESULTS
Crude mortality rates (per 10 000 per day) were below emergency thresholds: Kabizo 0.2 (95% CI: 0.1-0.4), Masisi 0.5 (0.4-0.6), Kitchanga 0.7 (0.6-0.9). Violence was the reported cause in 39.7% (27/68) and 35.8% (33/92) of deaths in Masisi and Kitchanga, respectively. In Masisi 99.1% (897/905) and Kitchanga 50.4% (509/1020) of households reported at least one member subjected to violence. Displacement was reported by 39.0% of households (419/1075) in Kitchanga and 99.8% (903/905) in Masisi. Theft affected 87.7% (451/514) of households in Masisi and 57.4% (585/1019) in Kitchanga. Access to health care was good: 93.5% (359/384) of the sick in Kabizo, 81.7% (515/630) in Masisi, and 89.8% (651/725) in Kitchanga received care, of whom 83.0% (298/359), 87.5% (451/515), and 88.9% (579/651), respectively, did not pay.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results show the impact of the ongoing war on these civilian populations: one third of deaths were violent in two sites, individuals are frequently subjected to violence, and displacements and theft are common. While humanitarian aid may have had a positive impact on disease mortality and access to care, the population remains exposed to extremely high levels of violence.
Journal Article > Meta-AnalysisFull Text
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 June 25; Volume 20 (Issue 11); DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30193-6
Caleo GNC, Theocharaki F, Lokuge K, Weiss HA, Inamdar L, et al.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 June 25; Volume 20 (Issue 11); DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30193-6
Background
Ebola virus disease case definition is a crucial surveillance tool to detect suspected cases for referral and as a screening tool for clinicians to support admission and laboratory testing decisions at Ebola health facilities. We aimed to assess the performance of the WHO Ebola virus disease case definitions and other screening scores.
Methods
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science for studies published in English between June 13, 1978, and Jan 14, 2020. We included studies that estimated the sensitivity and specificity of WHO Ebola virus disease case definitions, clinical and epidemiological characteristics (symptoms at admission and contact history), and predictive risk scores against the reference standard (laboratory-confirmed Ebola virus disease). Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were calculated using bivariate and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (when four or more studies provided data) or random-effects meta-analysis (fewer than four studies provided data).
Findings
We identified 2493 publications, of which 14 studies from four countries (Sierra Leone, Guinea, Liberia, and Angola) were included in the analysis. 12 021 people with suspected disease were included, of whom 4874 were confirmed as positive for Ebola virus infection. Six studies explored the performance of WHO case definitions in non-paediatric populations, and in all of these studies, suspected and probable cases were combined and could not be disaggregated for analysis. The pooled sensitivity of the WHO Ebola virus disease case definitions from these studies was 81·5% (95% CI 74·1–87·2) and pooled specificity was 35·7% (28·5–43·6). History of contact or epidemiological link was a key predictor for the WHO case definitions (seven studies) and for risk scores (six studies). The most sensitive symptom was intense fatigue (79·0% [95% CI 74·4–83·0]), assessed in seven studies, and the least sensitive symptom was pain behind the eyes (1·0% [0·0–7·0]), assessed in three studies. The performance of fever as a symptom varied depending on the cutoff used to define fever.
Interpretation
WHO Ebola virus disease case definitions perform suboptimally to identify cases at both community level and during triage at Ebola health facilities. Inclusion of intense fatigue as a key symptom and contact history could improve the performance of case definitions, but implementation of these changes will require effective collaboration with, and trust of, affected communities.
Ebola virus disease case definition is a crucial surveillance tool to detect suspected cases for referral and as a screening tool for clinicians to support admission and laboratory testing decisions at Ebola health facilities. We aimed to assess the performance of the WHO Ebola virus disease case definitions and other screening scores.
Methods
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science for studies published in English between June 13, 1978, and Jan 14, 2020. We included studies that estimated the sensitivity and specificity of WHO Ebola virus disease case definitions, clinical and epidemiological characteristics (symptoms at admission and contact history), and predictive risk scores against the reference standard (laboratory-confirmed Ebola virus disease). Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were calculated using bivariate and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (when four or more studies provided data) or random-effects meta-analysis (fewer than four studies provided data).
Findings
We identified 2493 publications, of which 14 studies from four countries (Sierra Leone, Guinea, Liberia, and Angola) were included in the analysis. 12 021 people with suspected disease were included, of whom 4874 were confirmed as positive for Ebola virus infection. Six studies explored the performance of WHO case definitions in non-paediatric populations, and in all of these studies, suspected and probable cases were combined and could not be disaggregated for analysis. The pooled sensitivity of the WHO Ebola virus disease case definitions from these studies was 81·5% (95% CI 74·1–87·2) and pooled specificity was 35·7% (28·5–43·6). History of contact or epidemiological link was a key predictor for the WHO case definitions (seven studies) and for risk scores (six studies). The most sensitive symptom was intense fatigue (79·0% [95% CI 74·4–83·0]), assessed in seven studies, and the least sensitive symptom was pain behind the eyes (1·0% [0·0–7·0]), assessed in three studies. The performance of fever as a symptom varied depending on the cutoff used to define fever.
Interpretation
WHO Ebola virus disease case definitions perform suboptimally to identify cases at both community level and during triage at Ebola health facilities. Inclusion of intense fatigue as a key symptom and contact history could improve the performance of case definitions, but implementation of these changes will require effective collaboration with, and trust of, affected communities.