Skip to main content
PLOS Global Public Health logoLink to PLOS Global Public Health
. 2022 Apr 20;2(4):e0000175. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000175

Majority of pediatric dengue virus infections in Kenya do not meet 2009 WHO criteria for dengue diagnosis

Aslam Khan 1,*, Bryson Ndenga 2, Francis Mutuku 3, Carren M Bosire 4, Victoria Okuta 2, Charles O Ronga 2, Noah K Mutai 2, Sandra K Musaki 2, Philip K Chebii 5, Priscilla W Maina 5, Zainab Jembe 5, Jael S Amugongo 5, Said L Malumbo 5, Charles M Ng’ang’a 5, Desiree LaBeaud 1
Editor: Max Carlos Ramírez-Soto6
PMCID: PMC10021889  PMID: 36962138

Abstract

From 1975–2009, the WHO guidelines classified symptomatic dengue virus infections as dengue fever, dengue hemorrhagic fever, and dengue shock syndrome. In 2009 the case definition was changed to a clinical classification after concern the original criteria was challenging to apply in resource-limited settings and not inclusive of a substantial proportion of severe dengue cases. Our goal was to examine how well the current WHO definition identified new dengue cases at our febrile surveillance sites in Kenya. Between 2014 and 2019 as part of a child cohort study of febrile illness in our four clinical study sites (Ukunda, Kisumu, Msambweni, Chulaimbo) we identified 369 dengue PCR positive symptomatic cases and characterized whether they met the 2009 revised WHO diagnostic criteria for dengue with and without warning signs and severe dengue. We found 62% of our PCR-confirmed dengue cases did not meet criteria per the guidelines. Our findings also correlate with our experience that dengue disease in children in Kenya is less severe as reported in other parts of the world. Although the 2009 clinical classification has recently been criticized for being overly inclusive and non-specific, our findings suggest the 2009 WHO dengue case definition may miss more than 50% of symptomatic infections in Kenya and may require further modification to include the African experience.

Introduction

Dengue virus is a flavivirus now widespread throughout the tropical regions of the world and is primarily transmitted by the mosquito vector Aedes aegypti [1]. There are four known serotypes that cause variable presentation in humans ranging from no symptoms to severe disease manifesting as hemorrhagic fever and shock [2]. With the variation in disease severity and widespread prevalence, there have been multiple efforts to provide comprehensive and effective diagnostic criteria for symptomatic infection to address the clinical, surveillance, and research settings [35]. The World Health Organization (WHO) has revised diagnostic criteria for symptomatic infection since 1975 with the most recent update in 2009. The 2009 revised guidelines shifted from dengue fever, dengue hemorrhagic fever, and dengue shock syndrome to a new classification of dengue with/without warning signs and severe dengue, with the goal of including more cases into the case definition and helping clinicians distinguish severe disease (Fig 1) [5, 6]. There has been critique citing overinclusion with the nonspecific symptoms defined in the most recent criteria [7]. Furthermore, with dengue infection a large proportion of the population remains asymptomatic when infected, with estimates up to three quarters of all infections worldwide. Multiple reports have described severe disease in children in the Americas and Southeast Asia and we aimed to characterize known symptomatic disease at our clinical sites in Kenya [8].

Fig 1. World Health Organization (WHO) dengue classification (2009).

Fig 1

Methods

Ethics statement

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards (IRB) at Stanford University by the Administrative Panel on Human Subjects in Medical Research and at the Technical University of Mombasa by the Office of the TUM Ethical Review Committee. Written informed consent was obtained from parents/guardians of all participants.

This research was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health [R01 AI102918; PI: ADL]. We followed children presenting with acute undifferentiated febrile illness in four outpatient clinical study sites across Kenya from January 2014 –June 2019. Febrile participants were enrolled from Chulaimbo Sub-County Hospital and Mbaka Oromo Dispensary (Chulaimbo, a rural Western setting), Jaramogi Oginga Odinga Teaching & Referral Hospital (Kisumu, an urban Western setting), Msambweni County Referral Hospital (Msambweni, a rural coastal setting), and Diani Health Centre (Ukunda, an urban coastal setting). All four hospitals are operated by the Kenyan Ministry of Health.

We recruited all children 1–17 years old who presented for acute febrile illness defined as reported illness during the prior 14 days and current temperature >38°C with no localizing symptoms. Participants or their parents/guardians provided consent. Our clinical officers obtained detailed clinical histories, comprehensive demographic/household data, and performed physical examinations. All study participants underwent blood collection for serologic analysis, molecular testing, and malaria parasite smear. All samples were tested by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for dengue virus serotypes 1–4 and chikungunya virus [9, 10]. RT-PCR testing was performed at our field laboratory sites in Msambweni and Kisumu and reproduced at Stanford University with a pan-DENV real time RT-PCR [10, 11]. All information was uploaded via a secure server into RedCap accessible at Stanford University.

We evaluated symptoms for all positive dengue virus individuals by RT-PCR as described by the clinical officers in their physical examinations. There was limited additional laboratory studies available but all available data was collected in reference to the 2009 WHO criteria for dengue diagnosis (Fig 1). Participants were classified as dengue infection without warning signs, dengue infection with warning signs, severe dengue, and did not meet criteria. Dengue was defined as a combination of ≥2 clinical findings in the febrile individuals, including nausea, vomiting, rash, aches and pains, positive tourniquet test, and leukopenia. Warning signs included abdominal pain/tenderness, persistent vomiting, clinical fluid accumulation, mucosal bleeding, lethargy, restlessness, and hepatomegaly. Severe dengue was defined by dengue with any of the following: severe plasma leakage leading to shock or fluid accumulation with respiratory distress, severe bleeding, or severe organ impairment (elevated transaminases ≥1,000 IU/L, impaired consciousness, or heart impairment).

The participants were classified by disease severity with the cases not meeting criteria grouped as a separate category. Proportions were calculated per group with the denominator of all participants included in the study (N = 369). For each proportion we calculated the exact binomial confidence interval (95%). The mean ages were calculated by disease group and symptoms were tallied by disease group.

Results

Of the 369 identified cases at our study sites, 7% (27/369, 95% CI [4.9–10.5%]) met criteria for dengue without warning signs, 29% (108/369, 95% CI [24.7–34.2%]) met criteria for dengue with warning signs, 2% (7/369, 95% CI [0.8–3.9%]) met criteria for severe dengue, and 62% (227/369, 95% CI [56.3–66.5%]) did not meet criteria for diagnosis. The mean ages were 5.0, 4.5, 4.7, and 5.5 years, respectively. The most common warning signs were lethargy paired with aches/pains and nausea/vomiting. Table 1 demonstrates the percentages of symptoms paired with the respective diagnoses. For severe dengue (N = 7) all cases had impaired consciousness but none were notable for hemorrhagic symptoms. No patients had laboratory data collected to determine white blood cell count, platelet count, or liver transaminase levels.

Table 1. Symptoms of participants (n = 369) characterizing dengue disease.

Abdominal pain/tenderness and lethargy are both warning signs.

Aches/Pains Nausea/Vomiting Rash Abdominal Pain/Tenderness Lethargy Impaired Consciousness
Dengue without warning signs (n = 27) 93% (25) 81% (22) 19% (5) - - -
Dengue with warning signs (n = 108) 76% (82) 57% (62) 13% (14) 29% (31) 80% (86) -
Severe dengue (n = 7) 86% (6) 43% (3) 14% (1) - 86% (6) 100% (7)
Did not meet criteria (n = 227) 38% (86) 15% (33) 1% (3) 8% (19) 5% (12) -

Discussion

This study highlights the challenges with dengue diagnosis and the current clinical criteria in Kenya. The majority of the symptomatic cases did not meet criteria per the 2009 guidelines, differing from other experiences reported in the Americas and Asia, where disease severity was classified in most symptomatic cases, with severe dengue representing up to 28% of cases [1217]. A recent systematic review identified a cumulative frequency of plasma leakage which confers severe dengue at 36.8% which contrasts to this cohort where no hemorrhagic symptoms were identified. Analyzing the utility of the guidelines from a clinical perspective, the few participants with severe disease were identified in the cohort. However, from an epidemiologic perspective, there was low utility in application of the guidelines for surveillance purposes as majority of infections did not meet criteria, contrasting to experience from the Americas or Asia [6, 17, 18].

Although our findings differ from other experiences around the world, they are similar to other experiences reported from the African continent [1922]. With improved surveillance, dengue has been increasingly identified as a significant cause of acute febrile illness across various sub-Saharan African countries [11, 19, 21]. The most common symptom often reported is fever with headaches, aches/pains, or myalgias, as demonstrated with our study (Table 1) [11, 19, 22]. This study evaluated 369 Kenyan children and did not identify any hemorrhagic symptoms or leaky capillary syndrome as described in children in Asia or the Americas [12, 14]. All the severe dengue cases met criteria with impaired consciousness which could be from infection or other causes. Co-infection is possible with other pathogens like malaria and comorbidities like epilepsy can also alter the presentation [11, 23, 24].

There can be multiple explanations why the majority of dengue infections were not captured within the confines of the guidelines. First, the majority of dengue infections cause mild illness or no symptoms at all, consistent with our findings [11, 22, 25]. Although the participants in our cohort did develop undifferentiated fever and sought clinical care, suggesting an inflammatory response significant enough to enter the health centers, the majority of their examinations were not concerning for severe features [11, 25]. Second, clinician subjectivity during examination may discount severe features [26]. As there are many possible causes of undifferentiated fever in Kenya, including malaria which is often the most suspected pathogen, clinicians rarely consider other causes of illness as they be unfamiliar with laboratory confirmed disease in the setting of limited diagnostics [27]. In our study the clinical officers had dengue PCR available and were trained on dengue diagnosis, which is not the case in many other clinical settings. Additionally, the health centers are all affiliated with the Ministry of Health and often there is a very high daily volume of patients, presenting a burden to be as comprehensive as one would strive to achieve. Third, there are reports of minimal severity of dengue disease in individuals of African ancestry when compared to white individuals [20]. This phenomenon has been demonstrated in Cuba and Haiti during prior outbreaks, leading experts to believe there may be a protective genetic factor preventing severe disease manifestations [19]. This theory has been proposed to explain the differences in the African dengue experience with the rest of the world [19].

The limitations of this study include the variability of clinical officer practices and limited laboratory data available. There was no significant laboratory data to evaluate the complete blood cell count parameters or hepatic involvement of all participants which may have led to misclassification bias amongst our cohort. In recent outbreaks, leukopenia has been reported in as much as 66% of symptomatic cases and if applied at that rate to this cohort, 47% of cases would continue to not meet criteria for dengue diagnosis [2830].

With minimal hemorrhagic symptoms and most infections not meeting criteria in the real-world limited laboratory setting, there may be benefit to modify the criteria to account for wide variability of presentation. The modification may need to be stratified for differing purposes like surveillance versus clinical diagnosis. As demonstrated in this study, there is wide variability with dengue infection and a single set of criteria may not be sufficient for all purposes. Ultimately, although there were less severe symptoms identified in our pediatric cohort in Kenya, it is important to continue surveillance efforts and improving diagnosis of dengue infection to detect and ultimately prevent future outbreaks.

Data Availability

An anonymized dataset has been uploaded to the DRYAD database. The information for the dataset including DOI is: Khan, Aslam (2022), Dengue Symptoms , Dryad, Dataset, https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.wdbrv15pv.

Funding Statement

The cohort study was funded through the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health [R01 AI102918; PI: DL]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of this manuscript.

References

  • 1.Kraemer MUG, Reiner RC, Brady OJ, Messina JP, Gilbert M, Pigott DM, et al. Past and future spread of the arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus. Nat Microbiol. 2019;4: 854–863. doi: 10.1038/s41564-019-0376-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bhatt S, Gething PW, Brady OJ, Messina JP, Farlow AW, Moyes CL, et al. The global distribution and burden of dengue. Nature. 2013;496: 504–507. doi: 10.1038/nature12060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bandyopadhyay S, Lum LCS, Kroeger A. Classifying dengue: a review of the difficulties in using the WHO case classification for dengue haemorrhagic fever. Trop Med Int Health TM IH. 2006;11: 1238–1255. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2006.01678.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Gan VC, Lye DC, Thein TL, Dimatatac F, Tan AS, Leo Y-S. Implications of discordance in world health organization 1997 and 2009 dengue classifications in adult dengue. PloS One. 2013;8: e60946. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060946 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Horstick O, Jaenisch T, Martinez E, Kroeger A, See LLC, Farrar J, et al. Comparing the Usefulness of the 1997 and 2009 WHO Dengue Case Classification: A Systematic Literature Review. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2014;91: 621–634. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.13-0676 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Farrar JJ, Hien TT, Horstick O, Hung NT, Jaenisch T, Junghanns T, et al. Dogma in Classifying Dengue Disease. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2013;89: 198–201. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.13-0157 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hadinegoro SRS. The revised WHO dengue case classification: does the system need to be modified? Paediatr Int Child Health. 2012;32 Suppl 1: 33–38. doi: 10.1179/2046904712Z.00000000052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Deen JL, Harris E, Wills B, Balmaseda A, Hammond SN, Rocha C, et al. The WHO dengue classification and case definitions: time for a reassessment. Lancet Lond Engl. 2006;368: 170–173. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69006-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lanciotti RS, Calisher CH, Gubler DJ, Chang GJ, Vorndam AV. Rapid detection and typing of dengue viruses from clinical samples by using reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. J Clin Microbiol. 1992;30: 545–551. doi: 10.1128/jcm.30.3.545-551.1992 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Waggoner JJ, Ballesteros G, Gresh L, Mohamed-Hadley A, Tellez Y, Sahoo MK, et al. Clinical evaluation of a single-reaction real-time RT-PCR for pan-dengue and chikungunya virus detection. J Clin Virol Off Publ Pan Am Soc Clin Virol. 2016;78: 57–61. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2016.01.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Shah MM, Ndenga BA, Mutuku FM, Vu DM, Grossi-Soyster EN, Okuta V, et al. High Dengue Burden and Circulation of 4 Virus Serotypes among Children with Undifferentiated Fever, Kenya, 2014–2017. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26: 2638–2650. doi: 10.3201/eid2611.200960 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Horstick O, Martinez E, Guzman MG, Martin JLS, Ranzinger SR. WHO dengue case classification 2009 and its usefulness in practice: an expert consensus in the Americas. Pathog Glob Health. 2015;109: 19–25. doi: 10.1179/2047773215Y.0000000003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Namvongsa V, Sirivichayakul C, Songsithichok S, Chanthavanich P, Chokejindachai W, Sitcharungsi R. Differences in clinical features between children and adults with dengue hemorrhagic fever/dengue shock syndrome. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2013;44: 772–779. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Halstead SB. Dengue in the Americas and Southeast Asia: do they differ? Rev Panam Salud Publica Pan Am J Public Health. 2006;20: 407–415. doi: 10.1590/s1020-49892006001100007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Huy BV, Hoa LNM, Thuy DT, Van Kinh N, Ngan TTD, Duyet LV, et al. Epidemiological and Clinical Features of Dengue Infection in Adults in the 2017 Outbreak in Vietnam. BioMed Res Int. 2019;2019: 3085827. doi: 10.1155/2019/3085827 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Rodrigo C, Sigera C, Fernando D, Rajapakse S. Plasma leakage in dengue: a systematic review of prospective observational studies. BMC Infect Dis. 2021;21: 1082. doi: 10.1186/s12879-021-06793-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Khan MdAS, Al Mosabbir A, Raheem E, Ahmed A, Rouf RR, Hasan M, et al. Clinical spectrum and predictors of severity of dengue among children in 2019 outbreak: a multicenter hospital-based study in Bangladesh. BMC Pediatr. 2021;21: 478. doi: 10.1186/s12887-021-02947-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Narvaez F, Gutierrez G, Pérez MA, Elizondo D, Nuñez A, Balmaseda A, et al. Evaluation of the Traditional and Revised WHO Classifications of Dengue Disease Severity. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001397 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Were F. The dengue situation in Africa. Paediatr Int Child Health. 2012;32 Suppl 1: 18–21. doi: 10.1179/2046904712Z.00000000048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Jaenisch T, Junghanss T, Wills B, Brady OJ, Eckerle I, Farlow A, et al. Dengue Expansion in Africa—Not Recognized or Not Happening? Emerg Infect Dis. 2014;20. doi: 10.3201/eid2010.140487 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Lim JK, Carabali M, Lee J-S, Lee K-S, Namkung S, Lim S-K, et al. Evaluating dengue burden in Africa in passive fever surveillance and seroprevalence studies: protocol of field studies of the Dengue Vaccine Initiative. BMJ Open. 2018;8. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017673 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Boillat-Blanco N, Klaassen B, Mbarack Z, Samaka J, Mlaganile T, Masimba J, et al. Dengue fever in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: clinical features and outcome in populations of black and non-black racial category. BMC Infect Dis. 2018;18: 644. doi: 10.1186/s12879-018-3549-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Carrillo-Hernández MY, Ruiz-Saenz J, Villamizar LJ, Gómez-Rangel SY, Martínez-Gutierrez M. Co-circulation and simultaneous co-infection of dengue, chikungunya, and zika viruses in patients with febrile syndrome at the Colombian-Venezuelan border. BMC Infect Dis. 2018;18: 61. doi: 10.1186/s12879-018-2976-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Vu DM, Banda T, Teng CY, Heimbaugh C, Muchiri EM, Mungai PL, et al. Dengue and West Nile Virus Transmission in Children and Adults in Coastal Kenya. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017;96: 141–143. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.16-0562 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Vu DM, Mutai N, Heath CJ, Vulule JM, Mutuku FM, Ndenga BA, et al. Unrecognized Dengue Virus Infections in Children, Western Kenya, 2014–2015. Emerg Infect Dis. 2017;23: 1915–1917. doi: 10.3201/eid2311.170807 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Raafat N, Loganathan S, Mukaka M, Blacksell SD, Maude RJ. Diagnostic accuracy of the WHO clinical definitions for dengue and implications for surveillance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021;15: e0009359. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009359 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hooft AM, Ripp K, Ndenga B, Mutuku F, Vu D, Baltzell K, et al. Principles, practices and knowledge of clinicians when assessing febrile children: a qualitative study in Kenya. Malar J. 2017;16: 381. doi: 10.1186/s12936-017-2021-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Tsai C-Y, Lee I-K, Lee C-H, Yang KD, Liu J-W. Comparisons of dengue illness classified based on the 1997 and 2009 World Health Organization dengue classification schemes. J Microbiol Immunol Infect Wei Mian Yu Gan Ran Za Zhi. 2013;46: 271–281. doi: 10.1016/j.jmii.2012.07.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Rafi A, Mousumi AN, Ahmed R, Chowdhury RH, Wadood A, Hossain G. Dengue epidemic in a non-endemic zone of Bangladesh: Clinical and laboratory profiles of patients. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020;14: e0008567. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008567 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bodinayake CK, Tillekeratne LG, Nagahawatte A, Devasiri V, Kodikara Arachchi W, Strouse JJ, et al. Evaluation of the WHO 2009 classification for diagnosis of acute dengue in a large cohort of adults and children in Sri Lanka during a dengue-1 epidemic. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12: e0006258. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006258 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000175.r001

Decision Letter 0

Max Carlos Ramírez-Soto, Julia Robinson

9 Nov 2021

PGPH-D-21-00576

Majority of Pediatric Dengue Virus infections in Kenya Do Not Meet 2009 WHO Criteria For Dengue Diagnosis

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Khan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 23 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Max Carlos Ramírez-Soto, BSc, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. Thank you for including your ethics statement:  "This study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards (IRB) at Stanford University and at our affiliated sites in Kenya.".   

Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study. 

For additional information about PLOS Global Public Health ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

2. Figure 1 appears to have been [previously published. We do not recommend using standard request forms available on Publishers' websites, as they grant single use rather than republication under an open access license. Instead, we recommend replacing the image. 

3. We ask that a manuscript source file is provided at Revision. Please upload your manuscript file as a .doc, .docx, .rtf or .tex. If you are providing a .tex file, please upload it under the item type ‘LaTeX Source File’ and leave your .pdf version as the item type ‘Manuscript’.

4. Tables should not be uploaded as individual files.  Please remove these files and include the tables in your manuscript file.

5. In the online submission form, you indicated that your data will be submitted to the Dryad database upon acceptance. Should your submission be accepted, we will require the following information in your Data Availability Statement: 

1. The DOI provided by Dryad

2. The citation for your data package in the reference section of your manuscript

3. The citation for your data package in the methods section

If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I think it would be important to compare the absolute numbers and

percentages of the findings of this study with respect to the classification criteria of the WHO, with other studies and include them in the discussion. They could also expand the information if the cases were obtained in times of greater or lesser dengue transmission and in the future increase the sample size

Reviewer #2: the statistical analysis is not complete as the "p-value" and the confidence Interval have not been calculated.

1.1. Summary of the research

The authors investigated the ability of health workers to diagnose new cases of Dengue based on the 2009 WHO revised guidelines.

To do so, they conducted a prospective cohort study from 2014 to 2019 in 4 health facilities in Kenya. They first tested patients admitted with fever in these facilities for RT-PCR and then included all Dengue positive cases, 369 cases. The next step was to search these 369 cases for the WHO diagnostic criteria according to the 2009 classification of new Dengue cases.

The results showed that 62% of the RT-PCR positive Dengue cases did not meet the WHO diagnostic criteria. The study also showed that severe Dengue cases were less frequent in Kenya compared to American or Asian series.

1.2. overall impression

This is an excellent, well-written, well-presented article that meets the standards of a scientific paper. In addition, the research question is relevant, and the results found are very useful for health professionals to improve the diagnosis and management of new cases of Dengue. Indeed, the diagnosis of Dengue is difficult because the non-specific symptoms and the frustrated forms represent 80 to 90% of the cases. However, its evolution is unpredictable while the lethality of severe forms, which is 1 to 5% of cases on average, can reach 20% in the absence of early and adapted medical care.

Also, the type of epidemiological study chosen, a prospective cohort study, is of satisfactory power.

There are some limitations to the study, which if corrected could improve the quality

� Strengths

- The research question is relevant

- The authors have done a good literature review and shared all the references used to conduct their work with a good indexing of the articles (see page 12)

- The introduction clearly states the research question and the conclusion answers this question in an objective, factual manner (see page 5).

- Good research methodology: the authors conducted a prospective cohort study, the sample size is sufficient (>300) for the results to be significant. Written consent was sought from the parents of the study participants, and the study protocol was submitted to the ethics committee (see pages 5 to 7).

- The authors looked for certain co-morbidities such as Chikungunya and malaria, since in tropical areas, these are the frequent and serious diseases to be suspected in front of an isolated fever.

� Weaknesses

- The absence of biological test in the research protocol is a problem knowing that Dengue symptoms are not very specific and that biological criteria are part of the classification of new cases of Dengue, both simple and severe. (see page 7 and Figure 1 page 11 of the manuscript)

- During the analysis of the results, the "p-value" was not calculated, nor the confidence intervals, not allowing to conclude that the results were not due to chance alone (see page 11).

- The RT-PCR test should also be used to search for other arboviruses besides Chikungunya (Zika virus, Yellow fever, Rift Valley fever, Crimean-Congo virus, etc...) as there are cross-reactions between them which can lead to false positive cases of Dengue. (see page 6).

� Recommendations

- Revise the 2009 WHO guidelines to allow for better and earlier diagnosis of Dengue fever cases and thus prevent complications

- Systematically search for Dengue in all cases of isolated fever in endemic areas according to the results of the study.

- Propose a classification of Dengue cases specific to Africans who have a different epidemiological profile than Americans and Asians

2. Discussion of specific areas for improvement

-we suggest that in the "Results" section on page 8 and page 11 of the manuscript, the authors may complete the data analysis by calculating the "p-value" and the confidence intervals.

- If the samples are still available, may the authors do the testing for other arboviruses in order to be sure that the RT-PCR is positive for the Dengue Virus for the cases that not meet the WHO criteria.

Reviewer #3: The paper does not present enough evidence to support its single most overriding communication objective, which is that WHO revised case definition is not sensitive for Dengue fever. The case definition for probable dengue includes two of five symptoms, one of which (leucopenia) was never assessed in all cases. It is surprising however that children numbering as much who are visiting medical facilities including reference hospitals with febrile illness do not have records of blood counts. The methods section did not offer a full description of the diagnostic process. For example, no information was given as to the name, description or sources of the primers/kits used in the polymerase chain reaction performed in the field sites and at Stanford University. Such would offer opportunity for appraisal of the quality of these primers and their capacity to prevent cross-reactivity with other febrile illness causing viruses. Data as presented in table 1 is not clear and no reference to this table was made in the discussion that can help clarify what figures and percentages represent.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000175.r003

Decision Letter 1

Max Carlos Ramírez-Soto, Julia Robinson

9 Mar 2022

Majority of Pediatric Dengue Virus infections in Kenya Do Not Meet 2009 WHO Criteria For Dengue Diagnosis

PGPH-D-21-00576R1

Dear Dr. Khan,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Majority of Pediatric Dengue Virus infections in Kenya Do Not Meet 2009 WHO Criteria For Dengue Diagnosis' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Global Public Health.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact globalpubhealth@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Global Public Health.

Best regards,

Max Carlos Ramírez-Soto, BSc, MPH, FRSPH

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Resonse to Reviewers PLOS GPH.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    An anonymized dataset has been uploaded to the DRYAD database. The information for the dataset including DOI is: Khan, Aslam (2022), Dengue Symptoms , Dryad, Dataset, https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.wdbrv15pv.


    Articles from PLOS Global Public Health are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES