Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38218669›Full record

Observational studyVaccine2024

JYNNEOS™ effectiveness as post-exposure prophylaxis against mpox: Challenges using real-world outbreak data.

Jennifer B Rosen, Robert J Arciuolo, Preeti Pathela, Christopher B Boyer, Jennifer Baumgartner, Julia Latash, Lenka Malec, Ellen H Lee, Vasudha Reddy, Renee King and 3 more

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Vaccine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. From neglected to notoriety: a review of Mpox clinical features, virology, epidemiology, treatment and prevention strategies.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
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

13 authors.

Jennifer B RosenDivision of Disease Control, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York City, NY, USA. Electronic address: jrosen4@health.nyc.gov.
Robert J ArciuoloDivision of Disease Control, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York City, NY, USA.
Preeti PathelaDivision of Disease Control, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York City, NY, USA.
Christopher B BoyerCenter for Communicable Disease Dynamics, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Jennifer BaumgartnerDivision of Disease Control, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York City, NY, USA.
Julia LatashDivision of Disease Control, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York City, NY, USA.
Lenka MalecDivision of Disease Control, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York City, NY, USA.
Ellen H LeeDivision of Disease Control, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York City, NY, USA.
Vasudha ReddyDivision of Disease Control, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York City, NY, USA.
Renee KingDivision of Disease Control, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York City, NY, USA.
Joseph Edward RealDivision of Disease Control, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York City, NY, USA.
Marc LipsitchCenter for Communicable Disease Dynamics, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Jane R ZuckerDivision of Disease Control, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York City, NY, USA; National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA, USA.

Funding

Accounting for Hidden Bias in Vaccine Studies: A Negative Control FrameworkR01GM139926 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI SHI, XU, TCHETGEN TCHETGEN, ERIC JOEL · 2021 to 2024
$1.5M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM139926
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundJYNNEOS

methodsEffectiveness of a single dose of JYNNEOS

resultsMedian time from last exposure to symptom onset (incubation period) among cases that did not receive PEP

conclusionsDetermining PEP effectiveness using real-world data during an outbreak is challenging. Time to PEP in NYC coupled with the observed incubation period resulted in overestimated PEP effectiveness using a conventional method. The target trial emulation, while yielding wide confidence intervals due to small sample size, avoided immortal time bias. While results from these evaluations cannot be used as reliable estimates of PEP effectiveness, we present important methodologic considerations for future evaluations.

Indexed as

Mpox, MonkeypoxVaccinesDisease OutbreaksHumansNew York CityPost-Exposure ProphylaxisRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicVaccinesEffectivenessJynneosmpoxProphylaxisVaccine

Identifiers

PMID38218669
PMCPMC10960631

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.