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

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.

[1]  O. Horstick,et al.  Editorial: Towards a global dengue research agenda , 2007, Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH.

[2]  J. Castro,et al.  The health and economic impact of dengue in Latin America. , 2007, Cadernos de saude publica.

[3]  Angel Balmaseda,et al.  Short report: assessment of the World Health Organization scheme for classification of dengue severity in Nicaragua. , 2005, The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene.

[4]  Dengue, one of the great emerging health challenges of the 21st century , 2004, Expert review of vaccines.

[5]  B. Wills,et al.  Management of Dengue , 2008 .

[6]  S. Kularatne,et al.  Epidemiology, clinical features, laboratory investigations and early diagnosis of dengue fever in adults: a descriptive study in Sri Lanka. , 2005, The Southeast Asian journal of tropical medicine and public health.

[7]  A. Osterhaus,et al.  Dengue disease severity in Indonesian children: an evaluation of the World Health Organization classification system. , 2007, BMC infectious diseases.

[8]  G. Crane Dengue haemorrhagic fever: diagnosis, treatment, prevention and control , 1999 .

[9]  Siep Thomas,et al.  Attributes of clinical guidelines that influence use of guidelines in general practice: observational study , 1998, BMJ.

[10]  M. Patton Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd ed. , 1990 .

[11]  M. Patton,et al.  Qualitative evaluation and research methods , 1992 .

[12]  Jacqueline L Deen,et al.  The WHO dengue classification and case definitions: time for a reassessment , 2006, The Lancet.

[13]  M. Cabana,et al.  Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. , 1999, JAMA.

[14]  Tom Solomon,et al.  Clinical diagnosis and assessment of severity of confirmed dengue infections in Vietnamese children: is the world health organization classification system helpful? , 2004, The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene.

[15]  D. Gubler,et al.  A program for prevention and control of epidemic dengue and dengue hemorrhagic fever in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. , 1991, Bulletin of the Pan American Health Organization.

[16]  M. Corbel,et al.  Toxicity and potency evaluation of pertussis vaccines , 2004, Expert review of vaccines.

[17]  A. Kroeger,et al.  Classifying dengue: a review of the difficulties in using the WHO case classification for dengue haemorrhagic fever , 2006, Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH.