DSpace Repository

Variations in national surveillance reporting for Mpox virus: A comparative analysis in 32 countries

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Panag, Deepkanwar Singh
dc.contributor.author Jain, Nityanand
dc.contributor.author Katagi, Dimitra
dc.contributor.author Cipriano Flores, Gabriela de Jesus
dc.contributor.author Silva Dutra Macedo, Gabriela Dias
dc.contributor.author Rodrigo Díaz Villa, Gonzalo
dc.contributor.author Yèche, Mathieu
dc.contributor.author Velázquez Mérida, Saydi Yusveni
dc.contributor.author Kapparath, Sreerag
dc.contributor.author Sert, Zilfi
dc.contributor.author Reinis, Aigars
dc.date.accessioned 2023-09-06T20:45:10Z
dc.date.available 2023-09-06T20:45:10Z
dc.date.issued 2023
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12866/14088
dc.description.abstract Objectives: Case Reporting and Surveillance (CRS) are crucial to combat the global spread of the Monkeypox virus (Mpox). To support CRS, the World Health Organization (WHO) has released standardized case definitions for suspected, probable, confirmed, and discarded cases. However, these definitions are often subject to localized adaptations by countries leading to heterogeneity in the collected data. Herein, we compared the differences in Mpox case definitions in 32 countries that collectively reported 96% of the global Mpox caseload. Methods: We extracted information regarding Mpox case definitions issued by the competent authorities in 32 included countries for suspected, probable, confirmed, and discarded cases. All data were gathered from online public sources. Results: For confirmed cases, 18 countries (56%) followed WHO guidelines and tested for Mpox using species specific PCR and/or sequencing. For probable and suspected cases, seven and eight countries, respectively were found to have not released definitions in their national documentations. Furthermore, none of the countries completely matched WHO’s criteria for probable and suspected cases. Overlapping amalgamations of the criteria were frequently noticed. Regarding discarded cases, only 13 countries (41%) reported definitions, with only two countries (6%) having definition consistent with WHO guidelines. For case reporting, 12 countries (38%) were found to report both probable and confirmed cases, in line with WHO requirements. Conclusion: The heterogeneity in case definitions and reporting highlights the pressing need for homogenization in implementation of these guidelines. Homogenization would drastically improve data quality and aid data-scientists, epidemiologists, and clinicians to better understand and model the true disease burden in the society, followed by formulation and implementation of targeted interventions to curb the virus spread. en_US
dc.language.iso eng
dc.publisher Frontiers
dc.relation.ispartofseries Frontiers in Public Health
dc.rights info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.rights.uri https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.es
dc.subject Case definitions en_US
dc.subject Differences en_US
dc.subject Epidemiology en_US
dc.subject Monkeypox en_US
dc.subject mpox en_US
dc.subject Reportin en_US
dc.subject Surveillance en_US
dc.subject.mesh Anamnesis Homeopática
dc.subject.mesh Individualidad
dc.subject.mesh Epidemiología
dc.subject.mesh Viruela del Mono
dc.subject.mesh Vigilancia en Desastres
dc.title Variations in national surveillance reporting for Mpox virus: A comparative analysis in 32 countries en_US
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.identifier.doi https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1178654
dc.relation.issn 2296-2565

Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess

Search DSpace


My Account