Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36981996›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023

Monkeypox (Mpox) and Occupational Exposure.

Marta Szkiela, Marta Wiszniewska, Agnieszka Lipińska-Ojrzanowska

Open access · goldFull text readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Analysis of Mpox by Occupation and Industry in Seven U.S. Jurisdictions, May 2022-March 2023.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  9. Mpox: what sexual health physicians need to know?International journal of impotence research · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marta SzkielaNofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Department of Occupational Diseases and Environmental Health, Sw. Teresy od Dzieciątka Jezus 8, 91-348 Lodz, Poland.
Marta WiszniewskaNofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Department of Occupational Diseases and Environmental Health, Sw. Teresy od Dzieciątka Jezus 8, 91-348 Lodz, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-2936-7493
Agnieszka Lipińska-OjrzanowskaNofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Department of Occupational Diseases and Environmental Health, Sw. Teresy od Dzieciątka Jezus 8, 91-348 Lodz, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-8854-1095
Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently, there has been a significant increase in interest in biological risk factors, which are increasingly perceived as an important problem in occupational medicine. Exposure to harmful biological agents may be associated with the deliberate use of microorganisms in the work process or with unintentional exposure resulting from the presence of biological risk factors in the work environment. Monkeypox (mpox) is a viral infectious disease that may afflict humans and non-human primates. Since May 2022, mpox has occurred in Europe, North and South America, Asia, Australia and Africa, with some 76,713 cases (75,822 in locations that have not historically reported mpox) and 29 total deaths reported to date. Between 2018 and 2021, several cases of mpox were reported worldwide in high-income countries (Israel, Singapore, United Kingdom, United States: Texas and Maryland). We conducted a literature search in PubMed and Google Scholar web databases for occupational exposure to mpox. The highest work-related risk for mpox transmission has been noted among healthcare professionals, people working with animals, and sex workers. There is general agreement that a paramount issue to avoid transmission of infection in occupational settings is an appropriate decontamination of often-touched surfaces and usage of appropriate personal protective equipment by the workers at high risk of infection. The group that should especially protect themselves and be educated in the field of early symptoms of the disease and prevention are dentists, who are often the first to detect the symptoms of the disease on the oral mucosa.

Indexed as

Mpox, MonkeypoxOccupational ExposureAfricaAnimalsAsiaAustraliaHumansexposureinfectious diseasesmpoxoccupational healthoccupational riskworkersworkplace

Identifiers

PMID36981996
PMCPMC10049490
OpenAlexW4324144087

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read49
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.