Ophthalmic Manifestations of the Mpox Virus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent outbreaks of mpox have raised concerns about its complications, including ophthalmic manifestations such as conjunctivitis, keratitis, and potential vision impairment. The lack of comprehensive data on these ocular complications hinders the development of effective clinical guidelines. This review aims to synthesize existing evidence on the prevalence and characteristics of mpox-related ocular complications. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus, covering studies up to 8 September 2024. Studies focusing on conjunctivitis, keratitis, eye lesions, visual impairment, and other ophthalmic outcomes in mpox cases were included. Meta-analyses were performed via a random effects model to estimate pooled prevalence rates, with heterogeneity assessed with the I2 statistic. Sensitivity analyses and publication bias assessments were also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 25 studies were included, with 22 contributing to the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of conjunctivitis in mpox cases was 8.9% (95% CI, 4.4%-17.1%); keratitis, 3.4% (95% CI, 1.4%-7.7%); eye lesions, 3% (95% CI, 1%-9%); and visual impairment, 4.3% (95% CI, .8%-20.6%). Other ocular manifestations had a pooled prevalence of 12.4% (95% CI, .6%-76.9%). Significant heterogeneity was observed, particularly for conjunctivitis and other ocular manifestations, suggesting variability in presentation. CONCLUSIONS: Conjunctivitis is the most common ophthalmic complication of mpox, followed by notable rates for keratitis, eye lesions, and visual impairment. These findings emphasize the need for early recognition, routine ocular examinations, and effective management of mpox-related eye complications. Further high-quality research is necessary to better understand and address these ocular complications. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: CRD42024584467 (PROSPERO).
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 | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".