ReviewEmerging microbes & infections2026
Ebola virus and Sudan virus infection in humans: a comparison to inform vaccine research and development.
Review in Emerging microbes & infections, 2026. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent outbreaks of Ebola virus (EBOV) disease (EVD) and Sudan virus (SUDV) disease (SVD) in sub-Saharan Africa underscore the ongoing public health threat posed by orthoebolaviruses. While highly effective vaccines are licensed for prevention of EVD, these offer limited cross-protection against other orthoebolaviruses, and no vaccines are licensed for SVD. Candidate SUDV vaccines are in development, but the sporadic nature of SVD outbreaks poses challenges for demonstrating clinical efficacy. In this context, it is important to consider whether and how the extensive evidence generated for EBOV infection, disease, and vaccine development can be leveraged to support SUDV vaccine development, consistent with the WHO prototype pathogen approach. Here, we synthesize available human data on the epidemiology, natural history, pathogenesis, and immunology of EBOV and SUDV infection to delineate their key similarities and differences. EBOV has caused more outbreaks, cases, and deaths than SUDV and has been more geographically widespread. There may be some differences in the typical causes of outbreaks, although gaps remain in understanding animal reservoirs for both viruses. Despite more limited data for SUDV, available evidence indicates that EBOV and SUDV share similar routes and progression of infection in humans, with comparable pathology and clinical presentation. Case fatality rates (CFRs) are generally higher for EVD than SVD. However, CFRs are influenced by outbreak context and healthcare access and should not be interpreted in isolation as evidence of intrinsic viral virulence. Collectively, this synthesis supports continued advancement of SUDV vaccine development using EBOV-informed evidence, while integrating SUDV-specific data where available.
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.