Interventions for preventing dengue: a mapping review
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews·
- DOI
- 10.1002/14651858.cd016299.pub2
- PMID
- 42633898
- PMCID
- —
- OpenAlex
- —
- Study type
- Systematic review
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Article type
- journal-article
- Integrity
- current
Why this research matters now
The authors highlight that the main challenge is not a lack of primary studies but the absence of strategic synthesis aligned with decision-making, and call for greater emphasis on epidemiological and implementation outcomes beyond entomological endpoints to support scalable dengue control, particularly in endemic and resource-constrained settings.
Structured evidence summary
Research question
The study aimed to comprehensively identify published literature on dengue prevention strategies, critically appraise systematic reviews, present findings in a single evidence and gap map, and identify knowledge gaps to guide future research.
Study design
A mapping review (evidence and gap map) drawing on RCTs, quasi-randomised trials, non-randomised studies of interventions with comparators, and systematic reviews; systematic reviews were appraised using AMSTAR 2.
Population and setting
Included studies were predominantly conducted in high-prevalence regions of South America and South Asia, with Brazil contributing the largest share. Most studies were community-level with mixed adult and child populations.
Main findings
Searches yielded 550 included studies, comprising 505 primary studies (197 RCTs and 308 NRSIs) and 45 systematic reviews across five intervention domains (vaccines, environmental, community education, aquatic-stage vector control, and adult vector control). Community education was the most extensively studied domain, largely addressing behavioural and entomological outcomes. Among the 45 systematic reviews, only eight were rated as high or moderate quality on AMSTAR 2, with common deficiencies including lack of protocol registration, inadequate justification for exclusions, and limited integration of risk of bias.
Public-health relevance
The authors highlight that the main challenge is not a lack of primary studies but the absence of strategic synthesis aligned with decision-making, and call for greater emphasis on epidemiological and implementation outcomes beyond entomological endpoints to support scalable dengue control, particularly in endemic and resource-constrained settings.
Important limitations
The review explicitly notes that most included systematic reviews were rated low or critically low quality on AMSTAR 2 due to methodological weaknesses. No explicit limitations of the mapping review itself are stated in the supplied abstract; accordingly, this summary is limited to the supplied single-article abstract and metadata and requires the original paper for decision-grade interpretation.
GIDS interpretation
This evidence and gap map offers a structured overview of where dengue prevention research exists and where synthesis is missing, which may help funders, policymakers, and researchers locate evidence clusters and under-synthesised areas. It is a descriptive mapping product and does not by itself confirm any current epidemiological signal.
Related GIDS surveillance
Literature context does not validate, explain, or change a surveillance signal. Exact and contextual relationships are shown separately.
Evidence relationships
This article has 10 auditable classifier relationships to diseases, places, topics, and study design.