ArticleMedicine international
Clinical manifestations of Oropouche virus infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine international. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Emerging threat of Oropouche virus: Clinical features, experimental models, and virulence.Virulence · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oropouche virus (OROV) is emerging as a growing public health concern, with increasing numbers of case, an expanding global spread and the potential for severe clinical outcomes. However, despite the increasing incidence, the clinical features of OROV infections have not yet been thoroughly examined. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the prevalence of clinical manifestations in OROV infections. For this purpose, a comprehensive search across PubMed, Web of Science and Embase was conducted up to April 9, 2025, to identify relevant studies. A random effects model was employed to calculate the pooled prevalence and 95% confidence intervals were calucalted. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I
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.