Global molecular and serological evidence of dengue and chikungunya infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 158,608 tested participants.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Dengue virus (DENV) and chikungunya virus (CHIKV) are Aedes-borne arboviruses with overlapping clinical manifestations, shared vectors, and substantial diagnostic challenges in co-endemic settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized published evidence on molecular detection, serological positivity, and DENV-CHIKV dual positivity/co-infection in human clinical, surveillance, and community-based study populations. CONTENT: Following PRISMA 2020 guidance, five bibliographic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar) and supplementary grey-literature/preprint sources were searched for English-language studies published from 1 January 1980 to 31 December 2024. No prospective PROSPERO or OSF protocol registration was available. Eligible records reported extractable numerators and denominators for DENV and/or CHIKV in humans using recognized molecular or serological assays. A total of 196 studies comprising 158,608 tested or suspected participants were included in the extraction table. The pooled CHIKV estimate was 14.0 % (95 % CI: 12.0-16.4; I2=97.5 %), with molecular and serological estimates of 9.8 and 15.7 %, respectively. The pooled DENV estimate was 13.8 % (95 % CI: 10.9-17.3; I2=99.0 %), with molecular and serological estimates of 13.1 % (95 % CI: 7.9-21.0) and 14.3 % (95 % CI: 10.2-19.8), respectively. DENV-CHIKV dual positivity/co-infection was 52.9 % (95 % CI: 48.7-57.1) among studies that tested and reported both outcomes. Country-level estimates varied widely and should be interpreted as summaries of available studies rather than nationally representative burden estimates. Funnel-plot asymmetry was statistically significant in DENV analyses but not in the overall CHIKV analysis. SUMMARY: Available evidence indicates extensive but highly heterogeneous DENV and CHIKV positivity across selected clinical and surveillance populations. The pooled estimates should be interpreted cautiously because of substantial between-study heterogeneity, diagnostic variability, outbreak-period sampling, and uneven geographic representation. OUTLOOK: The findings support integrated arboviral surveillance, multiplex diagnostics, and vector-control preparedness in co-endemic regions.