Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37143972›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

Variations in national surveillance reporting for Mpox virus: A comparative analysis in 32 countries.

Deepkanwar Singh Panag, Nityanand Jain, Dimitra Katagi, Gabriela De Jesus Cipriano Flores, Gabriela Dias Silva Dutra Macedo, Gonzalo Rodrigo Díaz Villa, Mathieu Yèche, Saydi Yusveni Velázquez Mérida, Sreerag Kapparath, Zilfi Sert and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. A Review of Mpox Outbreak and Public Health Response in Spain.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2024
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. 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

11 authors.

Deepkanwar Singh PanagFaculty of Medicine, Riga Stradinš University, Riga, LV, Latvia.
Nityanand JainFaculty of Medicine, Riga Stradinš University, Riga, LV, Latvia.
Dimitra KatagiFaculty of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Patras, Rio, Greece.
Gabriela De Jesus Cipriano FloresFaculty of Medicine, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru.
Gabriela Dias Silva Dutra MacedoFaculty of Medicine, Universidade da Região de Joinville (UNIVILLE), Joinville, Brazil.
Gonzalo Rodrigo Díaz VillaFaculty of Medicine, Universidad de los Andes, Las Condes, Chile.
Mathieu YècheICM, Paris Brain Institute, Hopital de la Pitie-Salpetriere, Sorbonne Universite, INSERM U1127, CNRS UMR7225, Paris, France.
Saydi Yusveni Velázquez MéridaFaculty of Human Medicine "Manuel Velasco Suárez", Universidad Autónoma de Chiapas, Tapachula, Chiapas, Mexico.
Sreerag KapparathFaculty of Medicine, Tbilisi State Medical University, Tbilisi, Georgia.
Zilfi SertFaculteit der Bètawetenschappen, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Aigars ReinisFaculty of Medicine, Riga Stradinš University, Riga, LV, Latvia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Case Reporting and Surveillance (CRS) are crucial to combat the global spread of the Monkeypox virus (Mpox). To support CRS, the World Health Organization (WHO) has released standardized case definitions for suspected, probable, confirmed, and discarded cases. However, these definitions are often subject to localized adaptations by countries leading to heterogeneity in the collected data. Herein, we compared the differences in Mpox case definitions in 32 countries that collectively reported 96% of the global Mpox caseload. Methods: We extracted information regarding Mpox case definitions issued by the competent authorities in 32 included countries for suspected, probable, confirmed, and discarded cases. All data were gathered from online public sources. Results: For confirmed cases, 18 countries (56%) followed WHO guidelines and tested for Mpox using species specific PCR and/or sequencing. For probable and suspected cases, seven and eight countries, respectively were found to have not released definitions in their national documentations. Furthermore, none of the countries completely matched WHO's criteria for probable and suspected cases. Overlapping amalgamations of the criteria were frequently noticed. Regarding discarded cases, only 13 countries (41%) reported definitions, with only two countries (6%) having definition consistent with WHO guidelines. For case reporting, 12 countries (38%) were found to report both probable and confirmed cases, in line with WHO requirements. Conclusion: The heterogeneity in case definitions and reporting highlights the pressing need for homogenization in implementation of these guidelines. Homogenization would drastically improve data quality and aid data-scientists, epidemiologists, and clinicians to better understand and model the true disease burden in the society, followed by formulation and implementation of targeted interventions to curb the virus spread.

Indexed as

Mpox, MonkeypoxCost of IllnessData AccuracyDocumentationHumansMonkeypox viruscase definitionsdifferencesepidemiologyMonkeypoxmpoxreportingsurveillance

Identifiers

PMID37143972
PMCPMC10151817

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.