Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2024 Jun 24;18(6):e0012087. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012087

Challenges in clinical diagnosis of Clade I Mpox: Highlighting the need for enhanced diagnostic approaches

Josephine Bourner 1,*, Esteban Garcia-Gallo 1, Festus Mbrenga 2, Yap Boum II 2, Emmanuel Nakouné 2, Amy Paterson 1, Benjamin Jones 1, Piero Olliaro 1, Amanda Rojek 1
Editor: Wen-Ping Guo3
PMCID: PMC11226010  PMID: 38913721

Abstract

Background

Due to limited diagnostic capacity and availability of point-of-care tests, diagnosis of Clade I mpox in the geographical regions most affected is usually on clinical grounds. This may be complicated due to the similarity between mpox and varicella (chickenpox) lesions. Visual assessment of lesions is also used for determining clinical progress and to assess patient outcomes in clinical trials. However, there has been no investigation into whether clinicians can (i) identify Clade I mpox compared to other viral lesions (ii) differentiate between Clade I mpox lesion stages.

Methodology/Principle findings

The objective of this study was to evaluate inter-rater reliability and agreement between clinicians assessing lesions in patients with Clade I mpox. We presented experienced clinicians with 17 images of Clade I mpox or varicella and asked them to independently indicate the most likely diagnosis–mpox or varicella–and to categorise the lesions according to their stage. When selecting the most likely diagnosis, accuracy varied across all images, the inter-rater reliability was poor (κ = 0.223; z = 10.1) and agreement was moderate (Po = 68%). When categorising lesions according to their type, if a single lesion type was present in the image, inter-rater reliability was moderate (κ = 0.671, z = 40.6) and agreement was good (Po = 78%), but when multiple lesion types were shown in an image, both inter-rater reliability (κ = 0.153, z = 10.5) and agreement (Po = 29%) decreased substantially.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that there are presently limitations in using visual assessment to diagnose Clade I mpox and evaluate lesion stage and treatment outcomes, which have an impact on clinical practice, public health and clinical trials. More robust indicators and tools are required to inform clinical, public-health, and research priorities, but these must be implementable in countries affected by mpox.

Author summary

Mpox is a zoonotic illness caused by the monkeypox virus (MPXV), for which there are two distinct sub-clades. Clade I is typically found in central Africa and is associated with worse patient outcomes than Clade II. Diagnosis of mpox is most commonly performed using PCR, but in settings with limited laboratory capacity diagnosis is usually performed on clinical grounds taking lesion presentation in to account. Lesion presentation is also used to assess patient outcomes in both clinical and research settings. However, there has been no investigation into whether clinicians can (i) identify Clade I mpox compared to other viral lesions (ii) differentiate between Clade I mpox lesion stages, which has important implications for clinical practice, research and public health. Our study, which presented 16 clinicians with 17 sets of images of Clade I mpox or varicella and asked them to i) provide the most likely diagnosis and ii) categorise the lesions in to their stages, demonstrates that there are presently limitations in using visual assessment to diagnose Clade I mpox and evaluate lesion stage and treatment outcomes. Alternative methods and tools are therefore required that can be easily implemented in affected countries.

Introduction

Mpox is a zoonotic illness caused by the monkeypox virus (MPXV), for which there are two distinct genetic sub-types, referred to as Clades. [1] Clade I mpox is found primarily in central Africa and is associated with worse patient outcomes than Clade II, which is further divided into Clade IIa (historically reported in west Africa) and Clade IIb, which caused a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) in 2022. [1]

There is a growing epidemic of Clade I mpox in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)–with a doubling in the number of cases over last year’s. [2] There are several concerning features to this outbreak, including an expansion in geographical areas affected, new introduction to dense urban populations (including Kinshasa, the capital city of DRC), and the first descriptions of sexual transmission of this clade. Both the World Health Organization (WHO) and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control risk assessments (ECDC) highlight that improving awareness and support for clinicians to diagnose cases is a key response priority. [2,3] While Clade II mpox is rarely fatal– 156 deaths out of over 91,000 cases reported outside Africa since May 2002 –, mortality associated with Clade I mpox is 1–12% [1] and there have been 581 deaths reported out of over 12,500 cases in DRC since February 2023. [2]

However, diagnosis of mpox is difficult. Confirmation of mpox diagnosis is primarily by PCR, [4,5] but, concerningly, new evidence suggests that the Clade I-specific RT-PCR test recommended by the US CDC is impacted due to genetic mutations in the virus causing this outbreak. [6] There are no point-of-care or rapid diagnostic tests alternatives at present. Laboratory diagnosis is impacted by operational challenges and limited laboratory capacity–in the present DRC epidemic, only 9% of suspected mpox cases have been tested by PCR. [7]

Therefore, diagnosis of Clade I mpox in the regions most affected is usually on clinical grounds. While clinical diagnosis is multifaceted and takes into consideration factors such as patient demographics, prevailing epidemiology, and clinical history–one important component is visual assessment of skin lesions. This is reported as difficult due to the similarity between mpox and varicella (chickenpox) lesions. Visual assessment of lesions is also used for determining clinical progress. Whether a lesion is ‘active’, ‘inactive’ or ‘resolved’ is used for determination of infectivity and infection-prevention and control requirements, decisions around whether to offer a patient access to potential treatments, and declarations of cure. The assessment of lesions has in addition become the focal area of evaluation in clinical trials. Several trials for Clade I and Clade II mpox use time to lesion resolution as the primary endpoint to indicate treatment success. [812]

Despite the myriad uses of clinical diagnosis of Clade I mpox, there has been no investigation into whether clinicians can (i) identify Clade I mpox compared to other viral lesions (ii) differentiate between Clade I mpox lesion stages–although some suspected limitations of this endpoint have already been identified. [13] A previous exercise undertaken by these authors on Clade IIb lesions demonstrated only moderate agreement among different assessors. [14]

This study evaluates agreement between clinicians on a differential diagnosis between Clade I mpox and varicella, and classification of lesion stages. Whether mpox Clade I lesions can be reliably classified on clinical grounds has important implications both in the low-resource settings where the virus circulates and in the event of spread to historically non-endemic regions–for decisions on treatment, public health control, and for the robustness of clinical research.

Methods

Ethics statement

The objective of this study was to evaluate inter-rater reliability and agreement between clinicians assessing lesions in patients with Clade I mpox. Two focal areas of agreement and reliability were evaluated: 1) differential diagnosis between Clade I mpox and varicella based on lesion presentation; 2) categorisation of lesion stages. The design, conduct and results of this study are reported according to the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRAAS). [15] Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the University of Oxford Medical Science Interdivisional Research Ethics Committee (R84355/RE001). All potential participants were sent an information sheet describing the purpose of the study and how their data would be used. Before accessing the questionnaire, participants were asked to declare that they had read the information sheet and give written informed consent to participate.

Participants

The participants in this study were clinicians who had experience treating and managing patients with Clade I mpox. Due to the potentially limited pool of participants with appropriate experience in the management of Clade I mpox, no target sample size was defined in advance of conducting this study. The study was therefore designed to be descriptive.

In total, 38 clinicians were contacted to participate: 15 from the DRC, seven from the Central African Republic, seven from France, three from Belgium, three from Switzerland, two from the UK and one from Nigeria (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Number of expert clinicians contacted and number of expert clinicians who returned a response by country.

Fig 1

The base map in Fig 1 was generated using the ‘ggplot2’ package in R.

All potential participants were sent an information sheet describing the purpose of the study and how their data would be used. Before accessing the questionnaire, participants were asked to declare that they had read the information sheet and give written informed consent to participate.

Data collection

Using the RedCap survey tool [16,17], participants were shown 17 sets of images of patients with either Clade I mpox or varicella lesions confirmed by PCR. The anonymised images selected for use in the survey were derived from the Institut Pasteur de Bangui clinical image library and showed lesions of different stages and located on different areas of the body.

Based on the lesion presentation in the images, the participants were asked to independently indicate the most likely diagnosis–mpox or varicella–and to categorise the lesions as being either active, scabbed or resolved, or they had the option to state they were unable to classify the lesions. Before starting the questionnaire, participants were shown the World Health Organisation’s working definition of each lesion stage. [18]

The survey also captured each clinician’s country of practice, average number of patients they manage with Clade I mpox in a year, and their self-rated confidence evaluating mpox lesions. Confidence evaluating mpox lesions was assessed on an ordinal scale from one to ten, with one representing no confidence and ten representing complete confidence.

The questionnaire used in this study can be found in S1 Appendix and was provided in both English and French.

Data analysis

All analyses completed in this study were conducted with the ’irr’ package in R Statistical Software (v4.3.2) [19] and validated using ’statsmodels’ package in Python (v3.11.5) by two analysts. The base map in Fig 1 was generated using the ‘ggplot2’ package and ‘map_data(’world’)’ function in R. [19]

Accuracy identifying mpox or varicella was evaluated using the percentage of raters selecting the correct diagnosis for each image. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (Spearman’s ρ) was employed to assess the relationship between experience—assessed by self-reported expertise and the number of patients managed—and each evaluator’s accuracy percentage. Spearman’s method, chosen for its suitability with small samples and ordinal data without assuming a normal distribution, necessitates a cautious interpretation of results due to the reduced statistical power and potential influence of noise and outliers inherent to limited datasets.

Inter-rater reliability was evaluated using Fleiss’ kappa coefficient (κ) and inter-rater agreement was evaluated using proportion of partial agreement (Po), and proportion of exact agreement (Poe). Partial agreement refers to the agreement between any one of the participants’ selections in a multiple-choice answer and exact agreement refers to a complete match between participants’ selections in a multiple-choice answer.

Questions related to lesion classification assessed only the images in which the patient had a confirmed diagnosis of mpox. The first analysis evaluates responses to the images where only a single or homogenous lesions were present and for which the κ and Poe are reported. The second analysis evaluates responses to the images where multiple types of lesions (combinations of active, scabbed and resolved) are present, for which the κ, the Po the Poe are reported.

Results

The questionnaire was sent to 38 potential participants in total, of whom 17 accessed the questionnaire and completed the eligibility check. One respondent was not eligible to participate as they were not directly involved in the clinical management of patients with Clade I mpox.

All 16 participants who started the questionnaire completed it in full. A summary of the participants’ country of work, confidence assessing an mpox lesion and number of mpox patients they have personally managed is summarised in Table 1 and Fig 1.

Table 1. Description of study participants.

Country of work, n (%):
Democratic Republic of Congo 8 (50%)
Central African Republic 2 (13%)
France 2 (13%)
United Kingdom 2 (13%)
Nigeria 1 (6%)
Belgium 1(6%)
Number of mpox patients the respondents has personally managed, n (%):
<5 0
5–10 2 (13%)
10–20 1 (6%)
20–50 5 (31%)
>50 8 (50%)
Confidence assessing mpox lesions, median (IQR):
Confidence score 8 (7.5–8)

Diagnosis

Accuracy selecting the most likely diagnosis between mpox and varicella based on lesion presentation varied across all images, with between 25% and 100% of the respondents correctly identifying the disease and a median = 75% (Q1: 62.5%, Q3: 93.75%). No correlation was detected between accuracy and either self-rated confidence (Spearman’s ρ = 0.3) or experience (Spearman’s ρ = 0.17) assessing lesions (Table 2).

Table 2. Correlation between raters’ diagnostic accuracy, self-rated confidence and experience using Spearman’s correlation (ρ).

Image Self-rated confidence Experience
Image - 0.3 0.168
Self-rated confidence 0.3 - -0.042
Experience 0.168 -0.042 -

When asked to select the most likely diagnosis of the patient between varicella and mpox based on the lesion presentation shown in the images, the inter-rater reliability was poor (κ = 0.223; z = 10.1) and agreement was moderate (Po = 68%). (Fig 2)

Fig 2. Dendrogram of the suspected diagnosis associated with the images based on lesion presentation.

Fig 2

In addition to the reported results, in S2 Appendix we show that there appears to be improved diagnostic accuracy if a single lesion type is present in the image, compared to images in which lesions appeared to be in multiple concurrent stages of evolution (S2 Appendix). We did not observe any relationship between diagnosis and accuracy (S2 Appendix). However, our sample size is too small to draw any generalisable conclusions.

Lesion classification

When a single lesion type was present in the image, inter-rater reliability was moderate (κ = 0.671, z = 40.6) and agreement was good (Po = 78%) (Table 3 and Fig 3).

Table 3. Summary of inter-rater reliability and agreement results.

Diagnosis of patients in images Response selection formats Lesion types present in image Fleiss’ kappa Z score Percentage of agreement
Type Result
Mpox & Varicella Single choice Single types and multiple types 0.223 10.1 Percentage of exact agreement 67.745
Mpox Single choice Single types 0.671 40.6 Percentage of exact agreement 78.14
Mpox Multiple choice Multiple types 0.447 25.9 Percentage of partial agreement 73.18
Mpox Multiple choice Multiple types 0.153 10.5 Percentage of exact agreement 29.04

Fig 3. Dendrogram of the respondents’ lesion assessments for which a single lesion type was present in the image.

Fig 3

However, when multiple lesion types were shown in an image, both inter-rater reliability (κ = 0.153, z = 10.5) and agreement (Po = 29%) decreased substantially. (Table 3)

Where partial agreement was assessed, inter-rater reliability was moderate (κ = 0.447, z = 25.9) and agreement was good (Po = 73%). (Fig 4 and Table 2)

Fig 4. Dendrogram of the respondents’ lesion assessments for which multiple lesion types were present in the image.

Fig 4

Discussion

This study demonstrates that there are presently limitations in using clinical assessment to diagnose Clade I mpox and evaluate lesion stage and treatment outcomes.

We found moderate accuracy, poor reliability, and moderate agreement among clinicians deciding between mpox and varicella diagnosis based on lesion presentation. In settings where laboratory diagnosis is not available, or delayed, there is a risk that patients could be managed according to an incorrect care pathway (e.g. provision of an incorrect antiviral). Misclassification of cases can have implications for public health activities as varied as disease surveillance, allocation of vaccinations, drug procurement, and reporting of notifiable diseases obligations. This has consequences also for the evaluation of treatment effects, both in clinical practice and research, with incorrect or inconsistent classification of outcomes.

We found that for classification of mpox lesion status there was moderate reliability and good agreement if a single lesion type is present–although this may not be sufficient to state that there is good agreement beyond chance [20,21]–but it appears to be most challenging to obtain consistent assessments when multiple lesion types are present. As lesions are unlikely to follow the same evolution pattern over time, the poor reliability and agreement between clinicians when multiple lesion types are present creates a substantial challenge. This includes clinical trials, which rely on a single overall assessment of a patient’s lesion presentation at a specific timepoint to act as an indicator of a patient’s overall outcome and response to treatment.

These findings occurred despite the self-rated confidence among the participants being high (IQR: 7.5–8). We found no correlation between confidence and experience defined according to the number of patients with mpox the respondent had managed (Fig 5). Due to the sporadic and widespread reporting of Clade I mpox across a large geographic area, it is possible that confidence, and agreement among real-world clinicians, who may only occasionally manage a patient with mpox or varicella, may be lower than reported in this study where we sampled a relatively expert group.

Fig 5. Scatterplot of respondents’ self-rated confidence plotted against experience (measured according to the number of patients managed).

Fig 5

A parallel study found higher agreement and reliability among clinicians assessing Clade IIb mpox lesions. [14] This may be due to differences in lesion presentation between the two diseases, with Clade IIb lesions often being more localised and fewer than Clade I lesions. The surveys were not combined due to the significant differences in clinical presentation between the clades, and that clinical experience spanning both clades is limited to a very small number of highly-expert clinicians. We searched the literature for analogous studies for other epidemic-prone rash diseases, but were unable to find equivalent research. This might be due to the better understanding of the natural history of these diseases (such as presence of other diagnostic discriminators such as orchitis, or the centrifugal pattern of a rash) and also the longstanding availability of diagnostics in high-income settings.

There is a continued requirement for resources (such as the WHO lesion assessment atlas) to assist clinicians and clinical triallists working in low-resource environments to improve their assessments, alongside support for improved diagnostic capacity. There is an urgent need to work to improve and find other correlates of disease progression (e.g. how much PCR status reflects ongoing infectivity).

Considering the lack of correlation between clinician experience and their ability to diagnose Clade I Mpox, this study underscores the potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) in improving Mpox diagnosis, especially in resource-constrained settings where access to doctors may be limited and initial assessments are often conducted by nurses or community health workers. The application of AI and ML technologies, capable of capturing and analysing images, presents a significant opportunity to enhance the diagnostic accuracy of clinicians and nurses in areas lacking PCR testing facilities.

Limitations

This study included a relatively low number of participants, because few clinicians worldwide have current or recent experience managing patients with Clade I mpox. The response rate was also challenged by difficulty identifying and reaching clinicians who work in remote areas with limited internet connection. Assessments made by visual inspection of images may not be reflective of all the information used to make assessments in a clinical scenario (such as epidemiological context, other clinical signs and symptoms of mpox such as presence of fever and adenopathy, patient’s descriptions of lesion evolution, and associated characteristics such as pain). We used reliability and agreement for assessment of mpox lesions (compared to accuracy) because there is no ‘gold standard’ classification to which to compare. We did not provide images where there was mpox and varicella coinfection.

Conclusion

It is difficult for experienced clinicians to distinguish clade I mpox from varicella, and to reliably assess disease stage for clade I mpox. More robust indicators and tools are required to inform clinical, public-health, and research priorities, but these must be implementable in countries affected by Mpox.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Questionnaire.

(PDF)

S2 Appendix. Summary of question characteristics and accuracy score.

(PDF)

pntd.0012087.s002.pdf (96.8KB, pdf)
S3 Appendix. Full dataset.

(CSV)

pntd.0012087.s003.csv (48.5KB, csv)

Data Availability

The full dataset used in the study is provided in S3 Appendix.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Wellcome [215091/Z/18/Z] and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135]. For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012087.r001

Decision Letter 0

Michael R Holbrook, Wen-Ping Guo

22 Apr 2024

Dear Ms Bourner,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Challenges in Clinical Diagnosis of Clade I Mpox: Highlighting the Need for Enhanced Diagnostic Approaches" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Wen-Ping Guo

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Michael Holbrook

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: The objectives and hypothesis are clear. The study is reasonable given the working conditions of the target of the survey. The persons to whom the survey were sent is not defined, only as mpox experts or experienced clinicians. It is important to identify more clearly to whom the survey was sent, and it would improve clarity to explain it was sent electronically to persons working remotely in central Africa (to the extent that is correct). The desired sample size was not defined. However, this is a descriptive study and the confidence limits on the resultant measures are provided. The analysis is reasonable, comparing the evaluation of pictures of skin lesions with the underlying diagnoses of mpox or varicella, and measuring agreement among observers.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: The analysis presented corresponds to the plan and are clearly presented. I believe some of the figures are not necessary and do not add to the presentation of the results.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: In practice, clinicians would have more data than simply the visual inspection of skin lesions to determine if a patient has mpox (disease from MPXV infection) or varicella, and to determine the stage of mpox. Clinicians would know the age of the patient, would know the status of others in the family and perhaps in the community, would know the duration of the illness, and may know something of the vaccination status of the patient. So this study does not replicate the situation of making a diagnosis in the field. At the same time, it provides information on the uncertainty of basing the diagnosis of a potentially life threatening illness and outbreak on only the visual inspection of the skin lesions. The author's reference the WHO case surveillance definition for suspected MPXV infection which includes the presence of typical skin lesions and the low likelihood of an alternative diagnosis (varicella zoster, herpes zoster, measles, herpes simplex, bacterial skin infections, disseminated gonococcus infection, primary or secondary syphilis, chancroid, lymphogranuloma venereum, granuloma inguinale, molluscum contagiosum, allergic reaction (e.g., to plants); and any other locally relevant common causes of papular or vesicular rash). The authors state that given the severity of Clade I MPVX with high rates of transmission and mortality, it is important not to rely on visual assessment of the skin lesions and it is very important to increase access to specific diagnostics (currently nucleic acid testing) in central Africa where Clade I is transmitted

This study regarding Clade I MPVX infection compliments the author's prior studies regarding the more common Clade II MPVX infection.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: Several of the figures seem of limited value to me, without adding to the information in the narrative and tables, if the number of figures is an issue for the publisher. There needs to be more detail about the makeup of the persons who were sent the survey, not just a table of where respondents were based and self report on expertise and number of patients treated. There should be an acknowledgement that clinicians have more data than just the appearance of the lesions when making a diagnosis. The WHO definition is not only based on the appearance of the lesions, as the authors suggest, but also on information that help judge the likelihood of alternate diagnoses.

With these clarifications, the paper could be accepted.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: It is a cleverly managed study regarding an illness of rapidly increasing importance. Although there is widespread agreement that access to pathogen specific diagnostics for Clade I MPVX in remote parts of central Africa (DRC, CAR, Cameroon, Sudan, and South Sudan), this study adds to the growing knowledge of this very important illness and pathogen.

Reviewer #2: I commend the authors for this study, which highlights the critical issue of diagnostic capacity in developing countries, often resulting in incorrect therapeutic interventions. However, it's important to acknowledge that diagnosis is multifaceted, relying not only on images but also on factors like risk assessment, patient history, and physical examination. While the study emphasizes the role of images, it should discuss the broader diagnostic process in its introduction and discussion. Additionally, exploring prior research on the role of images in diagnosing diseases like mumps, smallpox, and varicella, which primarily present with characteristic rashes, would enhance the study's context and significance.

--------------------

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Jonathan Allen Cohn, MD MS FACP FIDSA

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dawd Siraj

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

References

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article's retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012087.r003

Decision Letter 1

Michael R Holbrook, Wen-Ping Guo

4 Jun 2024

Dear Ms Bourner,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Challenges in Clinical Diagnosis of Clade I Mpox: Highlighting the Need for Enhanced Diagnostic Approaches' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Wen-Ping Guo

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Michael Holbrook

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************************************************

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012087.r004

Acceptance letter

Michael R Holbrook, Wen-Ping Guo

17 Jun 2024

Dear Ms Bourner,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Challenges in Clinical Diagnosis of Clade I Mpox: Highlighting the Need for Enhanced Diagnostic Approaches," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Appendix. Questionnaire.

    (PDF)

    S2 Appendix. Summary of question characteristics and accuracy score.

    (PDF)

    pntd.0012087.s002.pdf (96.8KB, pdf)
    S3 Appendix. Full dataset.

    (CSV)

    pntd.0012087.s003.csv (48.5KB, csv)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_15May2024.docx

    pntd.0012087.s004.docx (134.4KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The full dataset used in the study is provided in S3 Appendix.


    Articles from PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES