ReviewResearch and reports in urology2025
Urological Manifestation of Mpox Virus: A Scoping Review.
Review in Research and reports in urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Recent advances in Mpox across innate immunity, evasion, and clinical outcomes.Communications biology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mpox primarily presents with systemic and cutaneous symptoms. However, it can also lead to urological complications, necessitating specialized attention. The aim of this scoping review is to summarize the current evidence regarding the urological manifestations of Mpox, possible complications, and available treatments. Methods: An electronic systematic search of the current literature was conducted through the Medline and NCBI PubMed and Scopus databases on 18th August 2024. Our study search and inclusion criteria were in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. 9 The search terms and keywords used were: "monkeypox; Mpox" (MeSH Terms), combined with different terms: "urology", "kidney", "ureter", "bladder", "prostate", "genitals", "penis", "testicles", "urethra", in all different possible combinations. Results: A total of 32 articles included in the scoping review. A total of 116 patients were included, all males. The genitals were the most interested organs, associated with urethritis, while bladder and kidneys seemed to be not impacted by the disease. Patients were usually young, with a mean age of 36 years [31.5-40 years]. The most prevalent risk factor was sexual intercourse in the days/weeks before the appearance of symptoms. All patients had a molecular confirmatory diagnosis by a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. Five articles out of 32 (15.6%) reported the need for surgical debridement of penile and genital lesions due to their clinical worsening. However, in most reports, patients experienced spontaneous resolution of the lesions and symptoms. Conclusion: Awareness of Mpox and timely diagnosis are crucial for ensuring appropriate treatment and reducing the need for surgical management and the possible risk of long-term sequelae. Collaboration among dermatologists, infectious disease specialists, and urologists is pivotal to effectively managing Mpox 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.