ReachRxResearch
Home
Research
Sign Up
  1. Home
  2. Research Hub
  3. A systematic review of Nipah virus disea…

A systematic review of Nipah virus disease epidemiological parameters, outbreaks, and mathematical models

The Lancet Infectious Diseases·July 14
Infectious DiseasesSafety signalNipah Virus DiseaseSystematic ReviewEpidemiological SurveillanceMixed

Summary

View source

What was studied

Systematic review (PRISMA/PROSPERO) of Nipah virus epidemiological parameters, outbreak data, and mathematical models from 119 papers published up to March 14, 2025, covering seroprevalence, case-fatality ratios (CFRs), incubation period, and transmission parameters.

Key findings

Pooled CFR ranged from 9·1% (95% CI 0·2–41·3) in Singapore to 81·9% (95% CI 71·9–88·9) in Bangladesh; median incubation period estimated at 8·77 days (95% CI 7·53–10·02) from 8 estimates; IgG seroprevalence in the general population ranged 0–12·5%; basic reproduction number (R₀) was <1 in 4 of 5 estimates; only 8 of 39 mathematical models were fitted to real data.

Study limitations

Transmission parameters were scarce, and the clinical/infection timeline remains poorly characterised; most mathematical models were not data-fitted, limiting their predictive value; full text was not available—analysis is based on the abstract only.

Clinical implications

Nipah virus carries an extremely high CFR (up to ~82% in Bangladesh), making early recognition and outbreak containment critical for clinicians in south and southeast Asia. The low R₀ estimates suggest limited sustained human-to-human transmission, but sparse data mean uncertainty remains high.

Caveats

  • Full publisher text was unavailable; all data extracted from the abstract only — some nuance may be missing.
  • Sample size tag reflects number of included papers (n=119), not individual patients — no total patient-level N was reported in the abstract.
  • Study design tagged as Systematic Review; it includes meta-analytic pooling of CFR, so elements of a meta-analysis are present but the primary framing is a systematic review.
Show all 4
  • The wide CFR range (9·1% to 81·9%) likely reflects true geographic/strain heterogeneity as well as differences in surveillance and healthcare capacity across outbreaks, not study error alone.

Related Questions

Explore related topics

What is the current evidence on human-to-human transmission risk and infection control for Nipah virus outbreaks?How does Nipah virus CFR in Bangladesh compare to other viral hemorrhagic or encephalitic fevers?What mathematical models best predict Nipah virus outbreak dynamics in endemic regions of south Asia?

Publication Details

Year
2026
Journal
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
Sample Size
n=119
Source
View article
Keep scrolling
More content below.
Up Next