ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2024
Adherence to CDC Guidelines for mpox Evaluation: Practice Patterns Across an Academic Medical System During the 2022 Epidemic.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- "I Know They're Going to Weaponize This:" Black and Latino Sexual Minority Men's Mpox-Related Sexual Behaviors, Stigma Concerns, and Vaccination Barriers and Facilitators.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- SFTSV: a priority pathogen in need of a cure-reviewing the therapeutic.Archives of microbiology · 2026Review
- STI testing and diagnosis rates among patients with Mpox in 2 populous US cities, 2022.BMC medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Patients with suspected mpox presented to different venues for evaluation during the 2022 outbreak. We hypothesized that practice patterns may differ across venue of care. Methods: We conducted an observational study of patients undergoing mpox testing between 1 June 2022 and 15 December 2022. We assessed concomitant sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing, sexual history, and anogenital examination and a composite outcome of all 3, stratified by site. Venue of care was defined as ED (emergency department or urgent care), ID (infectious disease clinic), or PCP (primary care or other outpatient clinic). Results: Of 276 patients included, more than half (62.7%) were evaluated in the ED. Sexual history, anogenital examination, and STI testing were documented as performed at a higher rate in ID clinic compared to ED or PCP settings. STIs were diagnosed in 20.4% of patients diagnosed with mpox; syphilis was the most common STI among patients diagnosed with mpox (17.5%). Patients evaluated in an ID clinic had higher odds ratio of completing all 3 measures (adjusted odds ratio, 3.6 [95% confidence interval, 1.4-9.3]) compared to PCP setting adjusted for age, gender, and men who have sex with men status. Cisgender men who have sex with men, transgender males, and transgender females had higher odds ratio of completing all 3 measures compared to cisgender females (adjusted odds ratio, 4.0 [95% confidence interval, 1.9-8.4]) adjusted for age and venue of care. Conclusions: Care varied across clinical sites. ID clinics performed a more thorough evaluation than other venues. Rates of STI coinfection were high. Syphilis was the most common STI. Efforts to standardize care are important to ensure optimal outcomes for patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.