Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29231870›Full record

ReviewViruses2017

Improving the Care and Treatment of Monkeypox Patients in Low-Resource Settings: Applying Evidence from Contemporary Biomedical and Smallpox Biodefense Research.

Mary G Reynolds, Andrea M McCollum, Beatrice Nguete, Robert Shongo Lushima, Brett W Petersen

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Viruses, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 113 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
113citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

113 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 245 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

53 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Mary G ReynoldsUS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Poxvirus and Rabies Branch, Atlanta, GA 30329, USA. nzr6@cdc.gov.
Andrea M McCollumUS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Poxvirus and Rabies Branch, Atlanta, GA 30329, USA. azv4@cdc.gov.
Beatrice NgueteKinshasa School of Public Health, Kinshasa 11850, Congo. beatanguete13@gmail.com.
Robert Shongo LushimaMinistry of Health, Kinshasa 11842, Congo. robert_shongo@yahoo.fr.
Brett W PetersenUS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Poxvirus and Rabies Branch, Atlanta, GA 30329, USA. ige3@cdc.gov.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · USMinistry of Public Health · CD

Funding

NCEZID CDC HHS U01 CK000539
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Monkeypox is a smallpox-like illness that can be accompanied by a range of significant medical complications. To date there are no standard or optimized guidelines for the clinical management of monkeypox (MPX) patients, particularly in low-resource settings. Consequently, patients can experience protracted illness and poor outcomes. Improving care necessitates developing a better understanding of the range of clinical manifestations-including complications and sequelae-as well as of features of illness that may be predictive of illness severity and poor outcomes. Experimental and natural infection of non-human primates with monkeypox virus can inform the approach to improving patient care, and may suggest options for pharmaceutical intervention. These studies have traditionally been performed to address the threat of smallpox bioterrorism and were designed with the intent of using MPX as a disease surrogate for smallpox. In many cases this necessitated employing high-dose, inhalational or intravenous challenge to recapitulate the severe manifestations of illness seen with smallpox. Overall, these data-and data from biomedical research involving burns, superficial wounds, herpes, eczema vaccinatum, and so forth-suggest that MPX patients could benefit from clinical support to mitigate the consequences of compromised skin and mucosa. This should include prevention and treatment of secondary bacterial infections (and other complications), ensuring adequate hydration and nutrition, and protecting vulnerable anatomical locations such as the eyes and genitals. A standard of care that considers these factors should be developed and assessed in different settings, using clinical metrics specific for MPX alongside consideration of antiviral therapies.

Indexed as

Disease ManagementStandard of CareAnimalsBacterial InfectionsBiomedical ResearchDisease Models, AnimalEyeHumansMpox, MonkeypoxMucous MembraneSkinanimal modelclinical syndromemonkeypoxOrthopoxvirusstandard of care

Identifiers

PMID29231870
PMCPMC5744154
OpenAlexW2772048380

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.