The Global Enteric Multicenter Study (GEMS): Impetus, Rationale, and Genesis
Clinical Infectious Diseases·
- DOI
- 10.1093/cid/cis761
- PMID
- 23169934
- PMCID
- PMC3502311
- OpenAlex
- W2171931205
- Study type
- Case-control study
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Article type
- journal-article
- Integrity
- current
Why this research matters now
The work addresses diarrheal disease, cited as one of the top two causes of young child mortality in the developing world, and aims to inform prioritization of water/sanitation, hygiene, and vaccine strategies.
Structured evidence summary
Research question
The paper describes the motivation and design rationale for determining the etiology and population-based burden of pediatric diarrheal disease to guide vaccine development and implementation decisions.
Study design
It outlines a large multicenter case/control study of pediatric diarrhea, targeting roughly 12,600 analyzable cases and 12,600 controls, conducted at sites in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, each linked to demographic surveillance.
Population and setting
Children under five years of age in seven low- and middle-income country sites: Gambia, Kenya, Mali, Mozambique, Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan, encompassing approximately 467,000 child-years of demographic observation.
Main findings
No empirical results are presented; the abstract is restricted to describing the study's impetus, rationale, and projected design parameters.
Public-health relevance
The work addresses diarrheal disease, cited as one of the top two causes of young child mortality in the developing world, and aims to inform prioritization of water/sanitation, hygiene, and vaccine strategies.
Important limitations
No explicit limitations are stated in the supplied abstract. This summary is limited to the supplied single-article abstract and metadata and requires the original paper for decision-grade interpretation.
GIDS interpretation
As a methods/rationale paper for a major multicenter pediatric diarrhea investigation, it provides context for understanding subsequent etiology and burden findings; it does not by itself establish discoverability of any active surveillance 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 12 auditable classifier relationships to diseases, places, topics, and study design.