Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40572093›Full record

ReviewMicroorganisms2025

Analysis of the Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Syphilis in Susceptible Populations: Men Who Have Sex with Men, People Living with HIV, and Patients with Gestational and Congenital Syphilis-A Narrative Review.

Natalia Welc, Wiktoria Frącz, Rafał Olejniczak, Ryszard Żaba, Kevin Kavanagh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Microorganisms, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Natalia WelcDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61701 Poznan, Poland.
Wiktoria FrączDepartment of Physiotherapy, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61701 Poznan, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-5318-9343
Rafał OlejniczakDepartment of Urology, Collegium Medicum, University of Zielona Gora, 65417 Zielona Gora, Poland.
Ryszard ŻabaDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61701 Poznan, Poland.
Kevin KavanaghDepartment of Biology, Maynooth University, W23 F2K8 Maynooth, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered a public health crisis that significantly impacted sexually transmitted infections (STIs), particularly syphilis. However, data on syphilis incidence during the pandemic remains inconsistent globally. Key groups affected include women of reproductive age, pregnant women, individuals living with HIV, and men who have sex with men (MSM). This paper reviews available literature from databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar to analyse the pandemic's influence on congenital and gestational syphilis, focusing on high-risk populations. We discuss the pandemic's impact on the incidence of gestational and congenital syphilis, including changes in screening and treatment protocols. Additionally, we examine alterations in syphilis prevalence and testing among people living with HIV and MSM, including implications observed in blood donors. The findings underscore the consequences of impaired STI diagnostics for public health. We emphasise the need for uninterrupted access to diagnostics and treatment during public health crises. To prevent rising syphilis rates post-pandemic, it is crucial to implement robust education and accessible testing measures.

Indexed as

blood donorscongenital syphilisCOVID-19gestational syphilisHIVmen who have sex with menMSMpandemicpeople living with HIVPLWHsyphilis

Identifiers

PMID40572093
PMCPMC12194805

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.