ReviewAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2024
Monkeypox Diagnosis in Clinical Settings: A Comprehensive Review of Best Laboratory Practices.
Review in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- An Adaptive Generative 3D VNet Model for Enhanced Monkeypox Lesion Classification Using Deep Learning and Augmented Image Fusion.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- An Emerging Global Threat After The COVID-19 Pandemic: Monkeypox Similarities and Differences.Polish journal of microbiology · 2026Review
- The Impact of Monkeypox Virus Infection on Pregnancy Outcome: Clinical Features and Potential Pathogenic Mechanisms.Journal of immunology research · 2026Review
- Clade Ib: a new emerging threat in the Mpox outbreak.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An outbreak of monkeypox (Mpox) was reported in more than 40 countries in early 2022. Accurate diagnosis of Mpox can be challenging, but history, clinical findings, and laboratory diagnosis can establish the diagnosis. The pre-analytic phase of testing includes collecting, storing, and transporting specimens. It is advised to swab the lesion site with virus transport medium (VTM) containing Dacron or polyester flock swabs from two different sites. Blood, urine, and semen samples may also be used. Timely sampling is necessary to obtain a sufficient amount of virus or antibodies. The analytical phase of infectious disease control involves diagnostic tools to determine the presence of the virus. While polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is the gold standard for detecting Mpox, genome sequencing is for identifying new or modified viruses. As a complement to these methods, isothermal amplification methods have been designed. ELISA assays are also available for the determination of antibodies. Electron microscopy is another effective diagnostic method for tissue identification of the virus. Wastewater fingerprinting provides some of the most effective diagnostic methods for virus identification at the community level. The advantages and disadvantages of these methods are further discussed. Post-analytic phase requires proper interpretation of test results and the preparation of accurate patient reports that include relevant medical history, clinical guidelines, and recommendations for follow-up testing or treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38801583What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.