Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39121048›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2024

Knowledge and attitude towards mpox: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Darwin A León-Figueroa, Joshuan J Barboza, Abdelmonem Siddiq, Ranjit Sah, Mario J Valladares-Garrido, Alfonso J Rodriguez-Morales

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Darwin A León-FigueroaFacultad de Medicina Humana, Universidad de San Martín de Porres, Chiclayo, Peru.ORCID 0000-0001-7267-0204
Joshuan J BarbozaFacultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Escuela de Medicina, Universidad César Vallejo, Trujillo, Peru.
Abdelmonem SiddiqFaculty of Pharmacy, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
Ranjit SahDepartment of Microbiology, Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital, Institute of Medicine, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Mario J Valladares-GarridoUniversidad Continental, Lima, Peru.ORCID 0000-0003-0839-2419
Alfonso J Rodriguez-MoralesMaster of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Universidad Cientifica del Sur, Lima, Peru.ORCID 0000-0001-9773-2192

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe increase in mpox incidence underscores the crucial need to understand and effectively address prevention, early detection, and agile response to this disease. Therefore, the present study aims to determine the knowledge and attitude towards mpox.

methodsA systematic review and comprehensive literature meta-analysis were conducted using prominent databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and ScienceDirect, with an updated search until June 25, 2023. The quality of the included observational studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute's Statistical Meta-Analysis Review Instrument. The collected data were recorded in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, and analyses were conducted using R software version 4.2.3. Additionally, Cochran's Q statistics were applied to assess the heterogeneity of the included studies.

resultsA total of 299 articles were retrieved from 5 databases. This study included 27 cross-sectional articles with a total sample of 22,327 participants, of which 57.13% were women. The studies were conducted in 15 countries through an online survey. All studies had a moderate level of quality. The combined prevalence of a good level of knowledge about mpox was 33% (95% CI: 22%-45%; 22,327 participants; 27 studies; I2 = 100%), and the combined prevalence of a positive attitude towards mpox was 40% (95% CI: 19%-62%; 2,979 participants; 6 studies; I2 = 99%). Additionally, as a secondary outcome, the combined prevalence of the intention to vaccinate against mpox was 58% (95% CI: 37%-78%; 2,932 participants; 7 studies; I2 = 99%).

conclusionGood knowledge and a positive attitude towards mpox were found to be low. The findings of this study highlight the need to identify gaps and focus on implementing educational programs on mpox. TERMS USED: Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-MAStARI), Prospective International Registry of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeMpox, MonkeypoxHumans

Identifiers

PMID39121048
PMCPMC11315308

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.