Evidence Hub

Mpox infection in animals: A systematic review and meta-analysis

D. Bonilla-Aldana, J. L. Bonilla-Aldana, Juan R. Ulloque-Badaracco, Ali Al-kassab-Córdova, Enrique A. Hernández-Bustamante, Esteban A. Alarcón-Braga, Vicente A. Benites-Zapata, Cesar Copaja-Corzo et al.

Journal of Infection and Public Health, 2024

2,680 participants · 18 citations

Abstract

Mpox is a zoonotic disease that became epidemic in multiple countries in 2022. There is a lack of published systematic reviews on natural animal infection due to Mpox. We performed a systematic literature review with meta-analysis to assess animal Mpox prevalence. We performed a random-effects model meta-analysis to calculate the pooled prevalence and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) for prevalence studies. After the screening, 15 reports were selected for full-text assessment and included in qualitative and quantitative analyses. Ten reports assessed Mpox infection by molecular or serological tests (n = 2680), yielding a pooled prevalence of 16.0% (95%CI: 3.0-29.0%) for non-human primates; 8.0% (95%CI: 4.0-12.0%) for rodents and 1.0% (95%CI: 0.0-3.0%) for shrews. Further studies in other animals are required to define the extent and importance of natural infection due to Mpox. These findings have implications for public human and animal health. OneHealth approach is critical for prevention and control.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 2,680 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free