Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39900427›Full record

SynthesisBMJ global health2025

Risk factors associated with human Mpox infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Chigozie Louisa Jane Ugwu, Nicola Luigi Bragazzi, Jianhong Wu, Jude Dzevela Kong, Ali Asgary, James Orbinski, Woldegebriel Assefa Woldegerima

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

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

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

7 authors.

Chigozie Louisa Jane UgwuLaboratory for Industrial & Applied Mathematics, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5013-2253
Nicola Luigi BragazziLaboratory for Industrial & Applied Mathematics, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jianhong WuLaboratory for Industrial & Applied Mathematics, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jude Dzevela KongArtificial Intelligence and Mathematical Modelling Lab, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ali AsgarySchool of Administrative Studies, Faculty of Liberal Arts and Professional Studies, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
James OrbinskiDahdaleh Institute for Global Health Research, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Woldegebriel Assefa WoldegerimaLaboratory for Industrial & Applied Mathematics, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada wassefaw@yorku.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0336-7831

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMpox emerged as a significant global public health concern during the 2022-2023 outbreak, impacting populations in both endemic and non-endemic countries. This study reviews and synthesises evidence on the risk factors associated with human Mpox transmission across these regions.

methodsA systematic search of peer-reviewed original studies was conducted across Scopus, Embase, Web of Science and PubMed databases, covering publications up to 31 March 2024. The review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Two authors independently screened the articles by title, abstract and full text. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale used to assess the risk of bias for included articles. Fixed- or random-effects meta-analysis was conducted when at least two studies reported ORs or relative risks, with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed using the [Formula: see text] statistic. This study was registered on PROSPERO (ID:

resultsThe systematic review identified 947 articles through database searches, of which 31 met our inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis revealed significant risk factors associated with Mpox infection. Interaction with infected animals (OR=5.61, 95% CI 2.83, 11.13), HIV infection (OR=4.46, 95% CI 3.27, 6.08), other sexually transmitted infections (OR=1.76, 95% CI 1.42, 2.19), unprotected sexual activities (OR=1.53, 95% CI 1.13, 2.07), contact with an infected person (OR=2.39, 95% CI 1.87, 3.05), identification as men who have sex with men (OR=2.18, 95% CI 1.88, 2.51) and having multiple sexual partners (OR=1.61, 95% CI 1.24, 2.09) were associated with increased Mpox infection risk. Conversely, smallpox vaccination was associated with a significantly reduced risk of Mpox infection (OR=0.24, 95% CI 0.11, 0.55).

conclusionIdentification of risk factors associated with Mpox provides insights for strategic public health planning, enabling targeted interventions for high-risk groups and optimising resource allocation to strengthen Mpox control efforts.

Indexed as

AnimalsDisease OutbreaksHumansMpox, MonkeypoxRisk FactorsEpidemiologyGlobal HealthOther infection, disease, disorder, or injuryPublic HealthSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39900427
PMCPMC11795413

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.