Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36058544›Full record

ReviewClinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases2022

Management of patients with monkeypox virus infection and contacts in the community and in healthcare settings: a French position paper.

Didier Lepelletier, Bruno Pozzetto, Franck Chauvin, Christian Chidiac, High Council for Public Health national working groups

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Didier LepelletierHigh Council for Public Health, Ministry of Solidarity and Health, Paris, France. Electronic address: didier.lepelletier@sante.gouv.fr.
Bruno PozzettoHigh Council for Public Health, Ministry of Solidarity and Health, Paris, France.
Franck ChauvinHigh Council for Public Health, Ministry of Solidarity and Health, Paris, France.
Christian ChidiacHigh Council for Public Health, Ministry of Solidarity and Health, Paris, France.
High Council for Public Health national working groupsHigh Council for Public Health, Ministry of Solidarity and Health, Paris, France.
Ministère des Solidarités et de la Santé · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

scopeSince April 2022, a large number of monkeypox (MPX) cases have emerged across the globe in regions that are known to be totally free of zoonotic reservoir. The High Council for Public Health is a national institute commissioned to provide guidelines to the French Ministry of Health. The objective of these guidelines and recommendations is to inform the public, people at risk of severe MPX infection, infected patients and their families and contacts and healthcare workers in charge of infected patients.

methodsA review of the literature from the MEDLINE database was carried out using the single keyword 'monkeypox', including recent and older articles from January 2000 to June 2022. There was no filter for the type of study, except English language. The titles and summaries of all the articles were read by the experts to select articles of interest. The High Council for Public Health brought together specialists with expertise in the field to analyse the scientific literature and international recommendations. Recommendations were classified with clinical practice methodology using four levels (strong recommendation, recommendation, optional recommendation and no recommendation) without grading the level of evidence. To develop and methodologically validate the recommendations, the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument (AGREE-II)chart was partially used. QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY THE GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (a) What are the therapeutic management measures for hospitalized patients with severe forms of MPX infection, and what are the preventive measures to protect healthcare professionals? (b) What are the isolation and prevention measures in the community for patients with mild or moderate severity MPX infection? (c) what are the preventive measures for contacts of an MPX-infected person? (d) Who should be vaccinated? (e) What are the specific prevention measures for children and schools?

Indexed as

Monkeypox virusMpox, MonkeypoxChildDelivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelHumansLanguageContact tracingIsolationMild and moderate infectionMonkeypoxPreventive measuresTherapeutics

Identifiers

PMID36058544
PMCPMC9534082
OpenAlexW4294203890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.