Risk Factors of Human Mpox (Monkeypox) Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Mpox (formerly Monkeypox) virus has affected the lives of thousands of individuals both in endemic and non-endemic countries. Before the May 2022 outbreak, Mpox infections were sporadically endemic in Central and Western Africa, still research into Mpox has been limited and lacking epidemiological data. Thus, identification of potential risk factors to better understand who is at risk of being infected is critical for future prevention and control. Objective To synthesize comprehensive evidence on risk factors associated with human Mpox transmission both in endemic and non-endemic countries from inception to March 31, 2024. Methods The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed in conducting the systematic review. Electronic databases were searched. Two reviewers sifted the articles that were included in the review: firstly, by title and abstract, and secondly, by full text. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) to assess the risk of bias for included articles. Fixed or random effects meta-analysis were conducted when at least two studies reported odds ratios (OR), relative risks (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic and sensitivity analysis was also done. The study protocol has been registered under PROSPERO with ID: CRD42023459895 . Results 947 articles were identified from the database search and 31 articles were eligible to be included in the systematic review. The findings of the meta-analysis showed that interaction with infected animals ( OR = 5.61, 95% CI = 2.83, 11.13), HIV ( OR = 4.46, 95% CI = 3.27, 6.08), other STIs ( OR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.42, 2.91), sexual contact/activities (OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.13, 4.82), contact with an infected person (OR = 2.39, 95%CI = 1.87, 3.05), being identified as men who have sex with men (MSM) (OR = 2.18, 95%CI = 1.88, 2.51), and having multiple sexual partners Mpox (OR = 1.61, 95%CI = 1.24, 2.09), were associated with an increased risk of contracting Mpox. However, patients who were vaccinated against smallpox had a lower risk of Mpox infection (OR = 0.24, 95%CI = 0.11, 0.55). Conclusion This study is the first meta-analysis on reported risk factors for Mpox. Our analysis demonstrated that certain factors were associated with increased risk of Mpox, whereas smallpox vaccination had a protective role against contracting Mpox. The study findings could facilitate future strategic public health planning and targeted intervention. Key messages of this article What is already known on this topic Mpox (monkeypox) is a zoonotic infectious disease of notable global public health importance due to recent outbreaks in non-endemic countries. Prior outbreaks of Mpox have been associated with travel to endemic areas in Western and Central Africa, contact with infected animals, and close contact with infectious lesions, particularly among household members. What this study adds This study is the first meta-analysis on reported risk factors for Mpox. Our study findings add to the body of evidence on Mpox research efforts and could assist in future Mpox global strategic intervention and control. Our meta-analysis revealed a strong correlation between increased risk of Mpox infection, HVI, other STIs, physical and sexual contacts, and being identified as MSM. While HIV infection may be a risk factor for Mpox, Mpox lesions could also facilitate the transmission of HIV and other STIs. How this study might affect research, practice or policy The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis provide evidence to support policymakers in future Mpox intervention and prevention in both endemic and non-endemic countries based on identified risk factors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".