The table to the right shows references for all the studies included in the epidemiological studies section. You can find specific papers by their RefID.

Animal Health Impact

The panel to the right summarizes evidence collected from published studies describing natural infections with this agent (as opposed to experimental infections, summarised in dedicated section).

EFSA conducts regular systematic literature reviews covering studies investigating natural infections with this agent, and published in peer-reviewed literature in English since 1970.

You can download all data collected through systematic literature review here. Data fields are explained in this read-me file.

*The review was last updated in November 2023. The complete list of references is available for download here. If important references to primary studies are missing, contact animal-diseases@efsa.europa.eu. The full review protocol can be downloaded here.

This table shows references for all the studies included in this section. You can find specific papers by their RefID.

EFSA conducts regular systematic literature reviews covering all experimental infections published in peer-reviewed literature in English since 1970.

The panel to the right summarizes all evidence collected by EFSA from published experimental infection studies describing the health effects of Getah virus infection in host animal species.

Summaries of available scientific evidence are provided concerning:

• Host species
• Duration of clinical signs
• Clinical signs observed
• Case fatality
• Meta-analysis of reported duration of observed clinical signs, accounting for censoring in the experimental infection study groups

The panel to the right shows the animal species in which experimental infection has been demonstrated.

You can download all data collected through systematic literature review here. Data fields are explained in this read-me file.

The review was last updated in November 2023. The complete list of references is available for download here. If important references to primary studies are missing, contact animal-diseases@efsa.europa.eu. The full review protocol can be downloaded here.

The panel to the right shows the duration of clinical signs in host species. Experimental infections are usually done in animal groups, so two values are reported: the first day any animal in the group showed signs, and the last day any animal showed signs. This means the results show the range of days when signs can appear, not the exact duration for a single animal.

For each host species, the plot shows the distribution of start and end days of clinical signs for each animal group studied.

• The boxes represent the interquartile range (the middle 50% of data), with a line for the median (the middle value). The first quartile (Q1) is the 25th percentile, and the third quartile (Q3) is the 75th percentile.
• Dots represent outliers, which are values outside the range of Q1 minus 1.5 times the interquartile range, or Q3 plus 1.5 times the interquartile range.

Animals might still show signs on the last day of the experiment, so the maximum value is the highest observed, not the true maximum (censored data). The meta-analysis section recalculates the incubation period, considering this censoring.

The panel to the right shows, for each animal host, the percentage of individual animals with clinical signs in the animal group.

Duration of clinial signs: Meta-analysis accounting for censoring

Evidence was available through systematic literature review for a minimum of 4 animal groups studied through experimental infections.

Kaplan-Meier curves were fit to the data, in order to estimate confidence intervals (CI) and interquartile ranges (IQ) for the duration of clinical signs. This methodology explicitly takes into account the data censoring issue (lack of information about true maximum when experiments ended while the agent was still detectable).

• The plot to the right shows the survival curves with confidence intervals (CI; parametric assumption). Keep scrolling down to find a table with the exact calculated CI.

• The plot to the right shows the survival curves with interquartile ranges (IQ; non-parametric). Keep scrolling down to find a table with the exact calculated IQ.

• The table to the right shows the exact calculated confidence intervals (CI) and interquartile ranges (IQ) accounting for censoring (lack of information about true maximum when experiments ended while the agent was still detectable).

LCL and UCL stand for the lower and upper control limit of a 95% confidence interval accounting for censoring.

N.groups is the number of animal groups from which experimental infection data was available.

The table to the right shows the number of groups (N.groups) for which experimental infection data was available, and gives a summary of the fatality observed within these experimentally infected groups.

For each combination of animal species and, when relevant, agent subtype, three rows of information are available:

• The within-group fatality, summarized for all animal groups in which the reference explicitly gave information about whether deaths were observed or animals were euthanised due to advanced clinical signs (groups with mortality information). This therefore can include groups in which no animals died or were euthanised, as long as this information was explicitily observed and reported. The within-group percentage displayed in the table is the median of all observations available (one observation = % dead within one animal group experimentally infected and followed).
• The within-group fatality only for groups in which mortality was observed (only groups with deaths). That is, when disease was observed to cause deaths, what was the percentage fatality within animal groups.
• The number of animal groups for which no fatality information is available (no mortality information). This is, the reference did not report deaths, but it was not possible to determine whether no deaths were observed, or this information was simply not reported.

The table to the right presents the information for the specific references used in this section of the disease profile.

Virus taxonomy

Family: Togaviridae

Genus: Alphavirus

Species: Getah virus

Agent survival outside living hosts

The panel to the right summarizes all evidence collected by EFSA from published experiments on pathogen survival.

Summaries of available scientific evidence are provided concerning:

• Survival plots indicating the maximum number of days the virus was detected in different matrices under different conditions (temperature)
• Half-life studies which documented virus viability decay over time under different temperatures
• Meta-analysis of the reported virus survival period for matrices in which a sufficient number of studies were found

EFSA conducts regular systematic literature reviews covering pathogen survival experiments published in peer-reviewed literature in English since 1970.

You can download all data collected through systematic literature review here. Data fields are explained in this read-me file.

*The review was last updated in November 2023. The complete list of references is available for download here. If important references to primary studies are missing, contact animal-diseases@efsa.europa.eu. The full review protocol can be downloaded here.

The panel to the right summarizes all evidence collected by EFSA from published experimental infection studies describing host infectiousness. Scroll down through the content.

Summaries of available scientific evidence are provided concerning:

• Evidence of Host-host transmission
• Evidence of transplacentary transmission
• Meta-analysis of the reported duration of the infectious period, accounting for censoring in the experimental infection study groups
• Data for all animal matrices in which agent presence was demonstrated.

Please note that experimental infections are generally conducted in animal groups.

Species listed are those for which evidence was available in peer-reviewed literature (in English).

Plots are interactive, hover to see more information, drag to zoom.

• Infectious period cannot be measured directly unless transmission experiments are also conducted. Infection experiments reviewed in the literature actually measured the period of time during which the pathogen/genetic material could be detected in specific body matrices.
• All data were recorded per ANIMAL GROUP, not individually. As a result, the periods were recorded in the form of minimum and maximum values (in days) observed in the group. The values therefore do not reflect a distribution of infectivity in a single animal, but the earliest and latest day in which the pathogen/genetic material could possibly be detected in specific body matrices.
• Animals could still be infectious on the last day of the experiment. Data in this case is censored - the maximum represents the maximum observed, not the true maximum.

Data collected from matrices other than blood, and calculations of the infectious period accounting for censoring (lack of information about true maximum when experiments ended while virus was still detectable) are available further below.

EFSA conducts regular systematic literature reviews covering all experimental infections published in peer-reviewed literature in English since 1970.

You can download all data collected through systematic literature review here. Data fields are explained in this read-me file.

*The review was last updated in November 2023. The complete list of references is available for download here. If important references to primary studies are missing, contact animal-diseases@efsa.europa.eu. The full review protocol can be downloaded here.

The right panel gives a summary of findings on host-host transmission.

The right panel gives a summary of findings on transplacental transmission.

Duration of the infectious period: Meta-analysis accounting for censoring

Kaplan-Meier curves were fit to the data in order to estimate parametric confidence intervals (CI) and interquartile ranges (IQ) that explicitly take into account the data censoring issue (lack of information about true maximum when experiments ended while virus was still detectable). Further below you will find a table with the numerical values

Meta-analysis have been applied separately for VIRUS ISOLATION, detection of genetic material (DNA/RNA), and detection of virus ANTIGENS in species/matrices combinations where data was available for at least FOUR animal groups. The median minimum and maximum days during which virus/genetic material were detected in other matrices are listed in a table further below.

The plot to the right shows the survival curves with confidence intervals (CI; parametric assumption) for virus isolation. Keep scrolling down to find a table with the exact calculated CI.

Please note: Some data is organized across multiple tabs. If additional tabs are present, click through to explore each slide for a complete view of the data.

The plot to the right shows the survival curves with interquartile ranges (IQ; non-parametric) for virus isolation. Keep scrolling down to find a table with the exact calculated IQ.

Please note: Some data is organized across multiple tabs. If additional tabs are present, click through to explore each slide for a complete view of the data.

The table to the right shows the exact calculated confidence intervals (CI) and interquartile ranges (IQ) accounting for censoring (lack of information about true maximum when experiments ended while the agent was still detectable).

LCL and UCL stand for the lower and upper control limit of a 95% confidence interval accounting for censoring (lack of information about true maximum when experiments ended while virus was still detectable).

N.groups is the number of animal groups from which experimental infection data was available.

As pointed out above, meta-analyses were conducted only when data were available for at least four animal groups. Median values for all detection data collected in the systematic literature review (even when no meta-analyses were performed) are reported in the table to the right.

N.groups is the number of animal groups from which experimental infection data was available. The entire dataset can be downloaded through the link on the left panel.

The specific references for this agent, and used in this section are listed in the right panel.

There are no WOAH-recommended standard tests for Getah virus infection.

EFSA conducts regular systematic literature reviews covering peer-reviewed literature in English since 1970, covering diagnostic tests approved for use in the European Union (EU).

You can download all data collected through systematic literature review here. Data fields are explained in this read-me file.

The review was last updated in November 2023. The complete list of references is available for download here. If important references to primary studies are missing, contact animal-diseases@efsa.europa.eu. The full review protocol can be downloaded here.

Known vectors

• Kingdom: Animalia
• Phylum: Arthropoda
• Class: Insecta
• Order: Diptera
• Family: Culicidae
• Genus:Aedes sp., Culex sp.

Vector status estimations

The map on the right shows the reported presence of specific vector species in primary sources.

The data were collected in the VectorNet project, which covers a geographical scope extending across Europe and the Mediterranean basin. Refer directly to the Scientific Report and the VectorNet resources for further information on disease vectors, including expert opinion.

Visit the Vector control - mosquitoes for further information on vector control.

*To consider an arthropod species as a vector for viruses, the following four criteria should be satisfied (World Health Organization, 1967): (1) the species should be repeatedly associated with the disease in the field (season and places); (2) the virus should be recovered from field-collected adult females that do not have a fresh blood meal in the abdomen; (3) the species should be able to become infected after oral infection; and (4) the species should be able to transmit the infection biologically. However, based on the literature finding, all these criteria could be satisfied for only very few arthropod species, which could then be called a vector in this strict sense. Furthermore, other vector species could be present which were never tested for this pathogen.

EFSA conducts regular systematic literature reviews covering all vaccine efficacy studies published in peer-reviewed literature in English since 1970, when evaluating vaccines approved for use in the European Union. The next update of the SLR for vaccines is scheduled to be carried out in 2024.

Data were collected from all studies that evaluated the performance of commercial vaccines. For those studies meeting the inclusion criteria, vaccines were classified into the following types:

• Inactivated (dead)
• Live attenuated
• Live recombinant
• Recombinant (subunit vaccines)
• Other

You can download all data collected through systematic literature review here. Data fields are explained in this read-me file.

The review was last updated in November 2024. The complete list of references is available for download here. If important references to primary studies are missing, contact animal-diseases@efsa.europa.eu. The full review protocol can be downloaded here.

The panel to the right summarizes all evidence collected by EFSA from published treatment efficacy studies. When available, evidence was collected from two main types of studies:

• and those in which a vector-control substance (insecticide) was used, and its effect in preventing infections in hosts is reported.

For both types of studies, the following metrics are reported (whenever available):

• Percentage of infected hosts
• Host mortality

Please note that having a control group was one of the inclusion criteria for studies to be included in this literature review. The full review protocol can be downloaded here.

You can download all data collected through systematic literature review here. Data fields are explained in this read-me file.

The review was last updated in November 2023. The complete list of references is available for download here. If important references to primary studies are missing, contact animal-diseases@efsa.europa.eu.

EFSA regularly carries out risk assessments to support risk managers with their decision making on the prevention and control of diseases. Risk assessments of relevance for this disease are listed in the right panel.

The CoVetLab consortium has been responsible for the systematic literature reviews since 2015, and has delivered story maps to EFSA since 2021. Partners are: Swedish Veterinary Agency (SVA, Sweden); Wageningen Bioveterinary Research (WBVR, The Netherlands); Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA; UK) and the University of Surrey (UK).

The list of references displayed in this storymap is available on the right panel.

You can also download the complete list of references for each of the seven specific knowledge domains for which EFSA carries out systematic literature reviews regularly (living reviews):

• Experimental Infections (complete list of references, complete dataset, Read me file)
• Pathogen Survival (complete list of references, complete dataset, Read me file)
• Diagnostic Tests (complete list of references, complete dataset, Read me file)
• Vaccines (complete list of references, complete dataset, Read me file)
• Treatments (complete list of references, complete dataset, Read me file)
• Vector Control (complete list of references, complete dataset, Read me file)
• Geographical distribution (complete list of references, complete dataset, Read me file)