5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Availability, scope and quality of monkeypox clinical management guidelines globally: a systematic review

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Monkeypox (MPX) is an important human Orthopoxvirus infection. There has been an increase in MPX cases and outbreaks in endemic and non-endemic regions in recent decades. We appraised the availability, scope, quality and inclusivity of clinical management guidelines for MPX globally.

          Methods

          For this systematic review, we searched six databases from inception until 14 October 2021, augmented by a grey literature search until 17 May 2022. MPX guidelines providing treatment and supportive care recommendations were included, with no exclusions for language. Two reviewers assessed the guidelines. Quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool.

          Results

          Of 2026 records screened, 14 guidelines were included. Overall, most guidelines were of low-quality with a median score of 2 out of 7 (range: 1–7), lacked detail and covered a narrow range of topics. Most guidelines focused on adults, five (36%) provided some advice for children, three (21%) for pregnant women and three (21%) for people living with HIV. Treatment guidance was mostly limited to advice on antivirals; seven guidelines advised cidofovir (four specified for severe MPX only); 29% (4/14) tecovirimat, and 7% (1/14) brincidofovir. Only one guideline provided recommendations on supportive care and treatment of complications. All guidelines recommended vaccination as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Three guidelines advised on vaccinia immune globulin as PEP for severe cases in people with immunosuppression.

          Conclusion

          Our results highlight a lack of evidence-based clinical management guidelines for MPX globally. There is a clear and urgent need for research into treatment and prophylaxis including for different risk populations. The current outbreak provides an opportunity to accelerate this research through coordinated high-quality studies. New evidence should be incorporated into globally accessible guidelines, to benefit patient and epidemic outcomes. A ‘living guideline’ framework is recommended.

          PROSPERO registration number

          CRD42020167361.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

          Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The changing epidemiology of human monkeypox—A potential threat? A systematic review

              Monkeypox, a zoonotic disease caused by an orthopoxvirus, results in a smallpox-like disease in humans. Since monkeypox in humans was initially diagnosed in 1970 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), it has spread to other regions of Africa (primarily West and Central), and cases outside Africa have emerged in recent years. We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature on how monkeypox epidemiology has evolved, with particular emphasis on the number of confirmed, probable, and/or possible cases, age at presentation, mortality, and geographical spread. The review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020208269). We identified 48 peer-reviewed articles and 18 grey literature sources for data extraction. The number of human monkeypox cases has been on the rise since the 1970s, with the most dramatic increases occurring in the DRC. The median age at presentation has increased from 4 (1970s) to 21 years (2010–2019). There was an overall case fatality rate of 8.7%, with a significant difference between clades—Central African 10.6% (95% CI: 8.4%– 13.3%) vs. West African 3.6% (95% CI: 1.7%– 6.8%). Since 2003, import- and travel-related spread outside of Africa has occasionally resulted in outbreaks. Interactions/activities with infected animals or individuals are risk behaviors associated with acquiring monkeypox. Our review shows an escalation of monkeypox cases, especially in the highly endemic DRC, a spread to other countries, and a growing median age from young children to young adults. These findings may be related to the cessation of smallpox vaccination, which provided some cross-protection against monkeypox, leading to increased human-to-human transmission. The appearance of outbreaks beyond Africa highlights the global relevance of the disease. Increased surveillance and detection of monkeypox cases are essential tools for understanding the continuously changing epidemiology of this resurging disease.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Glob Health
                BMJ Glob Health
                bmjgh
                bmjgh
                BMJ Global Health
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2059-7908
                2022
                5 August 2022
                : 7
                : 8
                : e009838
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine , Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
                [2 ]departmentISARIC Global Support Centre, Pandemic Sciences Institute , University of Oxford , Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
                [3 ]departmentBristol Medical School , Unversity of Bristol , Bristol, UK
                [4 ]Royal Melbourne Hospital , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [5 ]departmentGloPID-R , University of Oxford , Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
                [6 ]Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust , London, UK
                [7 ]departmentDivison of Infection and Global Health Research , School of Medicine, University of St. Andrews , St Andrews, UK
                [8 ]departmentBodleian Health Care Libraries , University of Oxford , Oxford, UK
                [9 ]Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , Oxford, UK
                [10 ]departmentNuffield Department of Medicine , University of Oxford , Oxford, UK
                [11 ]Wellcome Trust , London, London, UK
                [12 ]National Institute for Communicable Diseases , Johannesburg, South Africa
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Louise Sigfrid; louise.sigfrid@ 123456gmail.com

                EW and IR are joint first authors.

                LS and PWH are joint senior authors.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9236-7317
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3659-7788
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6162-4146
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2425-9394
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2764-1177
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9822-1586
                Article
                bmjgh-2022-009838
                10.1136/bmjgh-2022-009838
                9472169
                35973747
                006c63bc-8288-489b-a999-a4d33204d014
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 08 June 2022
                : 07 July 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: Commonwealth and Development Office, Wellcome Trust;
                Award ID: 215091/Z/18/Z
                Funded by: MRC;
                Award ID: MR/T001151/1
                Funded by: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation;
                Award ID: OPP1209135
                Categories
                Original Research
                1506
                1612
                Custom metadata
                unlocked
                press-release
                press-release

                infections, diseases, disorders, injuries,systematic review,health policy

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content228

                Cited by18

                Most referenced authors1,049