ArticleBMJ global health2025
Systematic scoping review of the noma evidence landscape: current knowledge and gaps.
Article 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antimicrobial resistance in Noma control: a costly neglect within existing neglect.Tropical medicine and health · 2026Review
- Shotgun metagenomic analysis of the oral microbiomes of children with noma.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- Prevalence of significant depressive symptoms and associated factors among facially disfigured pediatric Noma patients in Nigeria: A single-centre cross-sectional study.PLOS mental health · 2026Article
- Defining the noma research agenda.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 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
backgroundNoma (cancrum oris) is a severe gangrenous disease of the mouth and oro-facial structures. Noma often affects young children living in extreme poverty, malnutrition and poor sanitation. Gaps remain in understanding its aetiology, pathogenesis, prevention and treatment. METHODS AND
findingsWe systematically searched databases for all primary research studies (clinical trials, cohort studies, case-control, cross-sectional, other observational studies, case studies/series) reporting noma patients of any age up to 7 December 2022. The 366 publications (published between 1839 and 2022) included in our scoping review describe 15 082 patients. Although 53 cohort and 29 cross-sectional studies were identified, enrolling 13 489 patients, interventional research remains extremely limited, with only six studies identified (101 patients, range: 7-26) and only one in the past decade, highlighting a critical gap in treatment evaluation. A total of 380 different treatment modalities were described, which underscores lack of a standardised practice. Disease aetiology remains unclear, with 117 microorganisms reported across 113 studies, yet none more consistently linked to noma development. Since 2000, 91.2% of cases have been reported in Sub-Saharan Africa, though occurrences outside the 'noma belt' and into Asia and the Americas suggest a broader risk. The 212 potential risk factors identified in 269 (73.5%) publications reflect substantial heterogeneity, complicating efforts to determine definitive causative factors. Additionally, the inconsistent definition and reporting of noma staging significantly hinder comparability across studies, with wide adoption of the WHO staging classification needed.
conclusionThis comprehensive review of the literature underscores the urgent need for robust, policy-driven research to address the vast knowledge gaps in the physiopathology of noma and the limited evidence currently available to guide therapeutic and preventive policies. Collective action and increased research investment are crucial, especially now that noma is officially recognised as a neglected tropical disease by the WHO.
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.