Comparison and critical appraisal of dengue clinical guidelines and their use in Asia and Latin America

R. Santamaria; E. Martinez; S. Kratochwill; C. Soria; L.H. Tan; A. Nuñez; E. Dimaano; E. Villegas; H. Bendezú; Axel Kroeger; I. Castelobranco; J.B. Siqueira; T. Jaenisch; O. Horstick; L.C.S. Lum

doi:10.1016/j.inhe.2009.08.006

Comparison and critical appraisal of dengue clinical guidelines and their use in Asia and Latin America

R. Santamaria, E. Martinez, S. Kratochwill, C. Soria, L.H. Tan, A. Nuñez, E. Dimaano, E. Villegas, H. Bendezú, Axel Kroeger, I. Castelobranco, J.B. Siqueira, T. Jaenisch, O. Horstick, L.C.S. Lum

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Summary The World Health Organization (WHO) dengue classification scheme for dengue

fever (DF) and dengue haemorrhagic fever (DHF)/dengue shock syndrome (DSS) has been

adopted as the standard for diagnosis, clinical management and reporting. In recent years,

difficulties in applying the WHO case classification have been reported in several countries.

A multicenter study was carried out in Asia and Latin America to analyze the variation and

utility of dengue clinical guidelines (DCGs) taking as reference the WHO/PAHO guidelines

(1994) and the WHO/SEARO guidelines (1998). A document analysis of 13 dengue guidelines

was followed by a questionnaire and Focus Group discussions (FGDs) with 858 health care

providers in seven countries. Differences in DCGs of the 13 countries were identified including the concept of warning signs, case classification, use of treatment algorithms and grading into

levels of severity. The questionnaires and FGDs revealed (1) inaccessibility of DCGs, (2) lack of

training, (3) insufficient number of staff to correctly apply the DCGs at the frontline and (4)

the unavailability of diagnostic tests. The differences of the DCGs and the inconsistency in their

application suggest a need to re-evaluate and standardise DCGs. This applies especially to case

classification and case management.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	133-140
Number of pages	8
Journal	International Health
Volume	1
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inhe.2009.08.006
Publication status	Published - 1 Dec 2009
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

Case classification
Clinical guidelines
Dengue
Dengue fever
Dengue haemorrhagic fever
Disease management

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1016/j.inhe.2009.08.006

Cite this

Santamaria, R., Martinez, E., Kratochwill, S., Soria, C., Tan, L. H., Nuñez, A., Dimaano, E., Villegas, E., Bendezú, H., Kroeger, A., Castelobranco, I., Siqueira, J. B., Jaenisch, T., Horstick, O., & Lum, L. C. S. (2009). Comparison and critical appraisal of dengue clinical guidelines and their use in Asia and Latin America. International Health, 1(2), 133-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inhe.2009.08.006

@article{cd937d5d97634eb0999b05465f0076bc,

title = "Comparison and critical appraisal of dengue clinical guidelines and their use in Asia and Latin America",

abstract = "Summary The World Health Organization (WHO) dengue classification scheme for denguefever (DF) and dengue haemorrhagic fever (DHF)/dengue shock syndrome (DSS) has beenadopted as the standard for diagnosis, clinical management and reporting. In recent years,difficulties in applying the WHO case classification have been reported in several countries.A multicenter study was carried out in Asia and Latin America to analyze the variation andutility of dengue clinical guidelines (DCGs) taking as reference the WHO/PAHO guidelines(1994) and the WHO/SEARO guidelines (1998). A document analysis of 13 dengue guidelineswas followed by a questionnaire and Focus Group discussions (FGDs) with 858 health careproviders in seven countries. Differences in DCGs of the 13 countries were identified including the concept of warning signs, case classification, use of treatment algorithms and grading intolevels of severity. The questionnaires and FGDs revealed (1) inaccessibility of DCGs, (2) lack oftraining, (3) insufficient number of staff to correctly apply the DCGs at the frontline and (4)the unavailability of diagnostic tests. The differences of the DCGs and the inconsistency in theirapplication suggest a need to re-evaluate and standardise DCGs. This applies especially to caseclassification and case management.",

keywords = "Case classification, Clinical guidelines, Dengue, Dengue fever, Dengue haemorrhagic fever, Disease management",

author = "R. Santamaria and E. Martinez and S. Kratochwill and C. Soria and L.H. Tan and A. Nu{\~n}ez and E. Dimaano and E. Villegas and H. Bendez{\'u} and Axel Kroeger and I. Castelobranco and J.B. Siqueira and T. Jaenisch and O. Horstick and L.C.S. Lum",

year = "2009",

month = dec,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.inhe.2009.08.006",

language = "English",

volume = "1",

pages = "133--140",

journal = "International Health",

issn = "1876-3413",

publisher = "Oxford University Press",

number = "2",

}

Santamaria, R, Martinez, E, Kratochwill, S, Soria, C, Tan, LH, Nuñez, A, Dimaano, E, Villegas, E, Bendezú, H, Kroeger, A, Castelobranco, I, Siqueira, JB, Jaenisch, T, Horstick, O & Lum, LCS 2009, 'Comparison and critical appraisal of dengue clinical guidelines and their use in Asia and Latin America', International Health, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 133-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inhe.2009.08.006

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison and critical appraisal of dengue clinical guidelines and their use in Asia and Latin America

AU - Santamaria, R.

AU - Martinez, E.

AU - Kratochwill, S.

AU - Soria, C.

AU - Tan, L.H.

AU - Nuñez, A.

AU - Dimaano, E.

AU - Villegas, E.

AU - Bendezú, H.

AU - Kroeger, Axel

AU - Castelobranco, I.

AU - Siqueira, J.B.

AU - Jaenisch, T.

AU - Horstick, O.

AU - Lum, L.C.S.

PY - 2009/12/1

Y1 - 2009/12/1

N2 - Summary The World Health Organization (WHO) dengue classification scheme for denguefever (DF) and dengue haemorrhagic fever (DHF)/dengue shock syndrome (DSS) has beenadopted as the standard for diagnosis, clinical management and reporting. In recent years,difficulties in applying the WHO case classification have been reported in several countries.A multicenter study was carried out in Asia and Latin America to analyze the variation andutility of dengue clinical guidelines (DCGs) taking as reference the WHO/PAHO guidelines(1994) and the WHO/SEARO guidelines (1998). A document analysis of 13 dengue guidelineswas followed by a questionnaire and Focus Group discussions (FGDs) with 858 health careproviders in seven countries. Differences in DCGs of the 13 countries were identified including the concept of warning signs, case classification, use of treatment algorithms and grading intolevels of severity. The questionnaires and FGDs revealed (1) inaccessibility of DCGs, (2) lack oftraining, (3) insufficient number of staff to correctly apply the DCGs at the frontline and (4)the unavailability of diagnostic tests. The differences of the DCGs and the inconsistency in theirapplication suggest a need to re-evaluate and standardise DCGs. This applies especially to caseclassification and case management.

AB - Summary The World Health Organization (WHO) dengue classification scheme for denguefever (DF) and dengue haemorrhagic fever (DHF)/dengue shock syndrome (DSS) has beenadopted as the standard for diagnosis, clinical management and reporting. In recent years,difficulties in applying the WHO case classification have been reported in several countries.A multicenter study was carried out in Asia and Latin America to analyze the variation andutility of dengue clinical guidelines (DCGs) taking as reference the WHO/PAHO guidelines(1994) and the WHO/SEARO guidelines (1998). A document analysis of 13 dengue guidelineswas followed by a questionnaire and Focus Group discussions (FGDs) with 858 health careproviders in seven countries. Differences in DCGs of the 13 countries were identified including the concept of warning signs, case classification, use of treatment algorithms and grading intolevels of severity. The questionnaires and FGDs revealed (1) inaccessibility of DCGs, (2) lack oftraining, (3) insufficient number of staff to correctly apply the DCGs at the frontline and (4)the unavailability of diagnostic tests. The differences of the DCGs and the inconsistency in theirapplication suggest a need to re-evaluate and standardise DCGs. This applies especially to caseclassification and case management.

KW - Case classification

KW - Clinical guidelines

KW - Dengue

KW - Dengue fever

KW - Dengue haemorrhagic fever

KW - Disease management

U2 - 10.1016/j.inhe.2009.08.006

DO - 10.1016/j.inhe.2009.08.006

M3 - Article

SN - 1876-3413

VL - 1

SP - 133

EP - 140

JO - International Health

JF - International Health

IS - 2

ER -

Comparison and critical appraisal of dengue clinical guidelines and their use in Asia and Latin America

Abstract

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this