Proctitis and Other Gastrointestinal Manifestations in Mpox Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Mpox, caused by the monkeypox virus (MPXV), is primarily recognized for its dermatologic and systemic symptoms. However, emerging evidence suggests a significant prevalence of gastrointestinal (GI) manifestations, particularly proctitis, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. Despite the growing clinical recognition of these symptoms, their epidemiology and impact remain poorly understood. This systematic review and meta‐analysis aim to quantify the prevalence of GI manifestations in Mpox patients and assess their clinical significance. Methods A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, including quantitative studies published up until October 2024 that reported GI manifestations in Mpox patients. Screening and data extraction were performed using Nested Knowledge software, and study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Meta‐analysis was conducted using R version 4.4, with heterogeneity evaluated via the I 2 statistic. Sensitivity analyses and publication bias were assessed using Doi plots and the Luis Furuya‐Kanamori (LFK) index. Results Out of 1229 records, 33 studies met the eligibility criteria, yielding a pooled prevalence of proctitis in Mpox patients at 24.75% (95% CI: 18.93%–31.04%) across 5878 participants, with high heterogeneity ( I 2 = 94.8%). The prediction interval for proctitis ranged from 1.46% to 61.76%. The pooled prevalence of other GI manifestations was 30.45% (95% CI: 18.27%–44.14%) across 2237 participants, with significant heterogeneity ( I 2 = 95.2%) and a prediction interval ranging from 0.00% to 85.28%. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the stability of these estimates, while publication bias was indicated by LFK index values exceeding 2.77. Conclusions This meta‐analysis highlights the substantial burden of GI manifestations in Mpox, particularly proctitis, with considerable variability across studies. The findings underscore the need for standardized diagnostic criteria and increased clinical recognition of GI symptoms in Mpox management. Further research into the underlying pathophysiology and integrating GI symptom assessment into Mpox surveillance and treatment strategies could enhance diagnostic accuracy and patient care outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".