ReviewRevista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health2024
Diagnostic accuracy of polymerase chain reaction for detection of mpox in humans.
Review in Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health, 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.
- Comparison of diagnostic performance between the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention real-time PCR assays for molecular detection of the mpox virus.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- A retrospective comparative diagnostic evaluation of three commercial qPCR kits for the diagnosis of mpox virus on an enriched sample set.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of Mpox clades: epidemiology, transmission dynamics, and detection strategies.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate diagnostic accuracy of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in detecting mpox infection in humans by pooling the estimates of sensitivity and specificity across different study settings. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane database, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of PCR test for the detection of monkeypox virus providing the sensitivity and specificity values and the total number of samples were included. The sensitivity and specificity values of PCR test were pooled for all the included studies. The meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines using the metadta package in STATA software. A summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve and forest plot were generated. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD-NIHR) database with Reference ID CRD42024590183. Results: Twelve studies were included for meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity estimate across all the studies using a random effects model was 0.99 (95% CI [0.95, 1.00]) and 1 (95% CI [0.96, 1.00]), respectively. The SROC curve confirmed high diagnostic accuracy of PCR. The quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS) tool depicted low risk of bias. Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis is the first study in the scientific literature to provide a pooling for diagnostic accuracy for PCR test for mpox and confirms it as an accurate tool in detecting the infection in humans.
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.