SynthesisFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2025
The epidemiological and clinical differences between patients with mpox and patients without mpox among suspected cases during the recent global mpox outbreaks: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: The recent mpox outbreaks have brought challenges to the global health system. We aimed to study the epidemiological and clinical differences between patients with mpox and patients without mpox among suspected cases during and after 2022. Methods: This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: Our meta-analysis included a total of 22 articles regarding 12,850 suspected cases of mpox. The prevalence of mpox was 54%. We found that the proportion of men among the mpox patients was much greater than that among the non-mpox patients (odds ratio (OR)=9.94, 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.37-22.58), and the same trend was also observed (OR = 11.52, 95% CI: 6.22-21.33) for men who have sex with men (MSM). Sexual intercourse (OR = 4.02, 95% CI: 2.63-6.13), multiple sexual partners (OR = 3.36, 95% CI: 1.99-5.68), and anal sex (OR = 2.40, 95% CI: 1.53-3.77) were more common among mpox patients than non-mpox patients. Sexual contact was more strongly associated with mpox infection (OR = 4.39, 95% CI: 1.77-10.92), whereas nonsexual contact (OR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.63-0.83) and transmission through health services (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.33-0.93) showed weaker associations. Furthermore, there were significant differences between the two patient groups in terms of sexually transmitted infections, symptoms, complications, lesion locations and types of lesions. Conclusions: Our findings provide a reference for clinicians in the diagnosis and differentiation of mpox. By scientifically understanding these epidemiological and clinical differences, healthcare workers can not only address this epidemic more effectively but also be more fully prepared for the inevitable challenges of future emerging infectious diseases. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420251141869.
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.