ReviewViruses2022
Time to Revise the WHO Categories for Severe Rabies Virus Exposures-Category IV?
Review in Viruses, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A randomized, non-inferiority phase III clinical trial of immunogenicity and safety of 5-dose and 4-dose schedules of a freeze-dried human rabies vaccine (MRC-5 cells) in participants aged 10-60.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Trial
- Circulating Antibody's Role During Post-Exposure Prophylaxis, and Beyond for Rabies: A Review.Vaccines · 2025Review
- Safety assessment of the world's first novel cocktail of two monoclonal antibodies in WHO category-III animal-bite patients.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rabies is a devastating disease and affects millions of people globally, yet it is preventable with appropriate and timely postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). The current WHO exposure categories (Categories I, II, and III) need revision, with a special Category IV for severe exposures. Rare cases of PEP failure have occurred in severe bites to the head and neck. Multiple factors, including route, wound severity, depth, contamination, viral dose, proximity to highly innervated areas and the CNS, and the number of lesions, remain unconsidered. Injuries in areas of high neural density are the most significant considering lyssavirus pathophysiology. Current recommendations do not account for these factors. A Category IV designation would acknowledge the severity and the increased risk of progression. Subsequently, patient management would be optimized with wound care and the appropriate administration of rabies-immune globulin/monoclonal antibodies (RIG/MAbs). All Category IV exposures would be infiltrated with the full dose of intact RIG (i.e., human RIG or MAbs) if the patient was previously unvaccinated. More concentrated RIG/MAb formulations would be preferred. As a world rabies community, we cannot tolerate PEP failures. A fourth WHO categorization will improve the care of these high-risk patients and highlight the global health urgency of this neglected disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.