Table 4 Summary of evaluated correlations in the order they are discussed in this work.

From: Epidemiological study on dengue in southern Brazil under the perspective of climate and poverty

Variables

Sample Size

Correlation

95% CI

Serology and Clinical symptoms (Correlation model: Pearson)

NS1/IgM

249 patients

−0.60

−0.51 to −0.67

IgM/IgG

249 patients

0.40

0.29 to 0.50

NS1/IgG

249 patients

Not significant

Virus Isolation/NS1

249 patients

0.52

0.42 to 0.60

Virus Isolation/IgM

249 patients

−0.58

−0.49 to −0.66

Virus Isolation/IgG Hemorrhagic

249 patients

−0.32

−0.21 to −0.43

Manifestations/IgG

249 patients

Not significant

Symptoms/Serology

249 patients

Not significant

Spatial distributions (Correlation model: Weighted Pearson)

BI/Demographic a

42 census tracts

Not significant

BI/Dengue Incidence b

42 census tracts

Not significant

Dengue Density c/ Mean Income

103 census tracts

−0.24

−0.05 to −0.41

NND Density d/ Mean Income

103 census tracts

−0.27

−0.08 to −0.44

Dengue Incidence/ Mean Income

10 census tracts

−0.65

−0.03 to −0.91

Patients Density e/ Mean Income

10–103 census tracts

 Not significant

Primary/Secondary Dengue Incidence

103 census tracts

0.67

0.54 to 0.76

Seasonal distribution (Correlation model: Spearman)

DV+/DV−

Monthly Occurrence

26 months

0.65

0.36 to 0.83

Precipitation/DV+

Monthly Occurrence

20–26 months*

0.52 ± 0.04

Temperature/DV+

Monthly Occurrence

20–26 months *

0.59 ± 0.02

Precipitation/DV−

Monthly Occurrence

20–26 months *

0.54 ± 0.04

Temperature/DV−

Monthly Occurrence

20–26 months *

0.85 ± 0.01

  1. aPopulation per hectare or mean income in the census tracts.
  2. bDV+ patients per number of patients (DV+ and DV−) in the census tracts.
  3. cDV+ patients per population in the census tracts.
  4. dDV+ and/or IgG+ patients per population in the census tracts.
  5. eNumber of patients (DV+ and DV−) per population in the census tracts.
  6. *Cross-correlation scanning from −6 months to +6 months.
  7. This is the result of a fitting. The 95% confidence interval was not evaluated.