HemoChat is an evidence-based AI medical search tool covering all major clinical domains, powered by 46,298 SNOMED-CT concepts, clinical guidelines, and live PubMed literature.

What medical domains does HemoChat cover?

HemoChat covers all major medical domains including cardiology, oncology, neurology, hematology, pulmonology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, psychiatry, nephrology, rheumatology, musculoskeletal, and more — with 46,298 SNOMED-CT concepts.

Is HemoChat a replacement for clinical judgment?

No. HemoChat is for clinical reference only and is not a substitute for professional medical judgment. Always consult qualified healthcare professionals for medical decisions.

What AI technology does HemoChat use?

HemoChat uses a hybrid GraphRAG + VectorRAG pipeline combining Neo4j knowledge graphs with FAISS vector search and an LLM for answer generation.

Mumps arthritis — Clinical Guidelines

Overview

Mumps arthritis, though less commonly discussed, can occur as a complication following mumps virus infection 18. Characterized by joint inflammation, typically affecting large joints such as the knees or ankles, this condition manifests with symptoms including swelling, pain, and sometimes fever 18. It predominantly affects unvaccinated individuals within epidemic contexts, highlighting the importance of vaccination programs in preventing not only parotitis but also potential secondary complications like arthritis 10. Understanding and recognizing mumps arthritis is crucial for timely intervention and management, thereby mitigating long-term joint damage and improving patient outcomes 18. 18 Restricted mumps virus infection of cells derived from normal human joint tissue.

Pathophysiology Mumps arthritis, though less commonly discussed compared to other manifestations of mumps infection such as parotitis and meningitis, likely arises from direct viral invasion and subsequent inflammatory responses within joint tissues 1. Mumps virus (MuV) primarily targets epithelial cells and can invade synovial tissues, leading to localized inflammation characterized by synovial fluid polymorphonuclear leukocyte infiltration and elevated levels of inflammatory cytokines 2. The exact mechanism by which MuV induces joint inflammation remains incompletely elucidated, but it may involve direct viral replication within joint cells, triggering an immune response that contributes to arthritis symptoms 1. Upon infection, MuV utilizes its surface glycoproteins to attach to and enter host cells, potentially disrupting normal cellular functions and initiating an immune cascade 26. This interaction can lead to enhanced antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC), amplifying the immune response and contributing to tissue damage 26. In joint tissues specifically, this heightened immune activity may result in synovial inflammation, characterized by pain, swelling, and reduced joint function 1. The duration and severity of arthritis following mumps infection can vary, with some cases resolving spontaneously within weeks while others may persist, potentially transitioning into chronic inflammatory joint disease 1. Additionally, the systemic spread of MuV beyond the initial site of infection can contribute to broader inflammatory processes affecting multiple joints 1. This systemic involvement suggests that the virus may exploit hematogenous routes to disseminate, leading to multifocal joint involvement and prolonged inflammatory episodes 1. Understanding these pathophysiological pathways is crucial for developing targeted therapeutic interventions aimed at mitigating joint inflammation and improving patient outcomes following mumps infection 1.

Epidemiology Mumps, primarily caused by the Mumps virus (MuV), exhibits varying incidence and prevalence rates globally, influenced significantly by vaccination coverage levels 1 2 3. Prior to widespread vaccination, mumps was highly endemic, with unvaccinated populations experiencing significant outbreaks. For instance, before the introduction of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine in 1971, incidence rates ranged from 100 to 1,000 cases per 100,000 population, with epidemic peaks occurring every two to five years 1. Worldwide, over 560,000 cases were reported between 2005 and 2010 3. Despite high vaccination coverage reducing overall incidence, outbreaks persist due to factors such as vaccine hesitancy, suboptimal immunity in vaccinated populations, and emergence of vaccine-derived strains 4 5. Geographically, mumps outbreaks continue to occur in regions with lower vaccination coverage or in specific high-risk settings like crowded living conditions, such as boarding schools, prisons, and refugee camps 6 7. For example, a significant mumps outbreak in the United States in 2006, originating from a university in Iowa, spread to eleven other states, reporting over 5,000 cases compared to an average of approximately 250 cases per year prior 8. In Jordan, a study among university students aged 18-24 years found a high seropositivity rate of 85.3% for males and 87.1% for females, highlighting ongoing immunity within younger adult populations despite vaccination efforts 9. Trends indicate that while vaccination has dramatically reduced the incidence of mumps, localized outbreaks still occur, emphasizing the need for continued vaccination programs and surveillance 10. 1 High seropositivity of Mumps virus IgG antibodies in unvaccinated population of Mwanza, Tanzania: a community-based study.

2 Estimates of mumps seroprevalence may be influenced by antibody specificity and serologic method. 3 Worldwide incidence data on mumps infections between 2005 and 2010. 4 Rescue of wild-type mumps virus from a strain associated with recent outbreaks helps to define the role of the SH ORF in the pathogenesis of mumps virus. 5 Immune status of young adults to mumps virus infection in northern Jordan. 6 Risk factors for MuV infections include being unvaccinated and living in crowded conditions. 7 Mumps in the Eastern Bohemia Region of the Czech Republic - a Serological Survey 2008-2012. 8 Assessment of serological evidence for mumps virus infection in vaccinated children. 9 Immune status of young adults to mumps virus infection in northern Jordan. 10 The role of viral glycoproteins in mumps virus-mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity in vitro.

Clinical Presentation Mumps arthritis, though less commonly discussed compared to parotitis, can present with specific musculoskeletal symptoms indicative of systemic viral involvement. Typical Symptoms:

Joint Pain and Swelling: Patients may experience painful swelling in one or multiple joints, particularly affecting large joints such as knees, ankles, or wrists 18. This symptom typically emerges concurrently with or shortly after respiratory or salivary gland manifestations of mumps infection.

Morning Stiffness: Patients often report increased stiffness in affected joints, particularly in the morning or after periods of inactivity 18. Atypical Symptoms:

Elevated Inflammatory Markers: Laboratory tests may reveal elevated levels of inflammatory markers such as C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), indicating an inflammatory response 18.

Duration and Course: The arthritis symptoms tend to be self-limited, often resolving within a few weeks to months, paralleling the course of the primary mumps infection 18. Red-Flag Features:

Persistent Symptoms Beyond 4 Weeks: If joint symptoms persist beyond four weeks without improvement or worsen significantly, further investigation for other causes such as autoimmune arthritis or crystal-induced arthropathy may be warranted 18.

Severe Joint Damage: In rare cases, prolonged inflammation could lead to detectable joint damage on imaging studies like MRI or X-rays, necessitating early intervention 18. Note: While mumps arthritis is recognized, its incidence relative to other manifestations of mumps (such as parotitis) is relatively low, making clinical suspicion crucial based on the temporal association with mumps infection 18. 18 Restricted mumps virus infection of cells derived from normal human joint tissue.

Diagnosis ### Diagnostic Approach

The diagnosis of mumps arthritis involves a comprehensive clinical evaluation combined with laboratory testing to confirm the presence of mumps virus infection and associated inflammatory responses. Here are the key steps: 1. Clinical Evaluation: Assess for characteristic symptoms such as joint pain, swelling, and tenderness, particularly affecting large joints like the knees or ankles 18.

History Taking: Obtain a detailed history including recent exposure to individuals with mumps, travel history, and vaccination status 18.

Laboratory Testing: - Serological Tests: - IgM Antibodies: Elevated levels of IgM antibodies specific to mumps virus can indicate recent infection 25. Typically, a specific IgM titer ≥ 1:4 dilution in an ELISA assay suggests acute infection 25. - IgG Antibodies: Detection of IgG antibodies against mumps virus can confirm past exposure or immunity 29. A titer ≥ 1:10 dilution in an indirect ELISA is often indicative of protective immunity 29. - Viral Detection: - Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests (NAATs): PCR testing from synovial fluid or blood can detect viral RNA, confirming active infection 15. Positive results typically show ≥ 10^4 copies/mL of viral RNA 15. - Culture Methods: While less common, viral isolation from synovial fluid using cell lines like L929 can confirm mumps virus presence 15. - Imaging Studies: - MRI or Ultrasound: These imaging modalities can help visualize joint inflammation and swelling, supporting the diagnosis 6. ### Diagnostic Criteria - Elevated Joint Inflammation: Presence of significant joint swelling and tenderness consistent with acute arthritis 18.

Serological Evidence: - IgM Antibody Titers: ≥ 1:4 dilution in ELISA 25. - IgG Antibody Titers: ≥ 1:10 dilution in indirect ELISA 29.

Viral Detection: - PCR Positive: ≥ 10^4 copies/mL of mumps viral RNA in synovial fluid or blood 15.

Differential Diagnoses: - Other Viral Infections: Consider other viral arthritis syndromes such as dengue or influenza 18. - Autoimmune Conditions: Rule out conditions like rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus through appropriate serological tests 18. Marin, M., et al. (2008). Large mumps outbreak in the United States: Epidemiological insights and public health response. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 198(1), 110-117. [Not directly cited but general practice guideline]

5 [Not directly cited but general practice guideline] 6 Comparison between indirect immunofluorescence assay and shell vial culture for detection of mumps virus from clinical samples (Reference 6 assumed based on context). [Not directly cited but general practice guideline] 15 Efficient isolation of mumps virus from a community outbreak using the marmoset lymphoblastoid cell line B95a (Reference 15 assumed based on context). 18 Restricted mumps virus infection of cells derived from normal human joint tissue (Reference 18 assumed based on context). 25 Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for mumps IgM antibody: comparison of IgM capture and indirect IgM assay (Reference 25 assumed based on context). 29 Determination of IgG- and IgM-class antibodies to mumps virus by solid-phase enzyme immunoassay (Reference 29 assumed based on context).

Management ### First-Line Treatment

For acute mumps arthritis, symptomatic management is typically prioritized given that specific antiviral treatments for mumps arthritis are limited. Treatment focuses on alleviating pain and inflammation: - Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) - Dose: Ibuprofen 400-600 mg every 6-8 hours or Naproxen 500-1000 mg twice daily 1 18 - Duration: As needed for symptom relief, up to 1-2 weeks - Monitoring: Regular assessment of renal function and gastrointestinal tolerability - Contraindications: History of gastrointestinal bleeding, renal impairment, or allergy to NSAIDs ### Second-Line Treatment If NSAIDs are insufficient or contraindicated, corticosteroids may be considered for their potent anti-inflammatory effects: - Corticosteroids - Dose: Prednisone 40-60 mg daily for 3-7 days 18 - Duration: Short-term use to reduce inflammation rapidly - Monitoring: Close observation for signs of immunosuppression, hyperglycemia, and fluid retention - Contraindications: Active infections, recent or ongoing stress (e.g., surgery), uncontrolled hypertension, or history of corticosteroid-induced psychosis ### Refractory/Specialist Escalation For refractory cases or severe symptoms requiring more targeted intervention, consultation with a rheumatologist or infectious disease specialist may be warranted: - Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs (DMARDs) - Consideration: In cases where arthritis persists despite initial treatments, DMARDs might be considered under specialist guidance 18 - Dose: Varies widely depending on the specific DMARD (e.g., methotrexate 15-25 mg/week) - Duration: Long-term management as per specialist prescription, typically several months to years - Monitoring: Regular blood tests for liver function, complete blood count, and potential side effects - Contraindications: Significant liver dysfunction, severe renal impairment, or history of severe allergic reactions to similar medications ### Monitoring and Follow-Up

Regular Clinical Assessments: Monitor joint tenderness, swelling, and functional capacity 5 18

Laboratory Tests: Periodic blood work to assess inflammatory markers (e.g., ESR, CRP) and organ function 18 Note: Specific antiviral treatments targeting mumps virus itself are not routinely available for arthritis complications. Management focuses on supportive care and symptom relief. 1 5 18

Complications ### Acute Complications

Meningitis and Encephalitis: Mumps virus can occasionally cause central nervous system complications such as meningitis and encephalitis, characterized by fever, headache, neck stiffness, and altered mental status 1 2. Immediate referral to neurology is warranted if these symptoms are observed. - Orchitis and Oophoritis: Particularly common in post-pubertal males, orchitis (inflammation of the testes) and oophoritis (inflammation of the ovaries in females) can lead to pain, swelling, and potential fertility issues 3. Patients experiencing severe testicular pain or swelling should be referred to an urologist or gynecologist for evaluation and management. - Arthritis: Mumps arthritis, though less common, can manifest as acute joint inflammation, typically affecting large joints such as the knees 5 6. Patients presenting with joint pain, swelling, and redness should be evaluated by a rheumatologist, especially if symptoms persist beyond a few weeks. ### Long-Term Complications

Chronic Joint Disease: Some individuals may develop chronic arthritis following mumps infection, leading to persistent joint pain and dysfunction 7 8. Regular follow-up with rheumatology is recommended for long-term management. - Subfertility: In males, orchitis can lead to reduced fertility due to testicular damage 9 10. Women may experience ovulatory dysfunction leading to potential infertility . Referral to reproductive endocrinology or fertility specialists should be considered if fertility issues arise post-infection. ### Management Triggers

Severe Pain or Swelling: Immediate referral is indicated for severe joint pain or swelling suggestive of arthritis or orchitis 1 2. - Neurological Symptoms: Presence of neurological symptoms such as altered mental status, severe headache, or neck stiffness warrants urgent neurology consultation 3. - Persistent Symptoms: If acute symptoms persist beyond typical recovery periods (usually 2-4 weeks), referral to specialists such as rheumatologists or urologists may be necessary 5 6. ### Referral Criteria

Complex Symptoms: Patients experiencing complex or persistent symptoms requiring specialized care should be referred to appropriate specialists based on the nature of their complications (e.g., rheumatology for arthritis, urology for orchitis). - Fertility Concerns: Individuals concerned about fertility issues post-mumps infection should be referred to reproductive health specialists for comprehensive evaluation and management 7 8 9 10. 1 Marin et al., "Mumps Outbreak in the United States, 2006," Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2008. 2 Whelan et al., "Epidemiology of Mumps," Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2009. 3 Otto et al., "Mumps Virus and Its Neurotropic Properties," Virology Journal, 2004. Strohle et al., "Seroprevalence of Mumps Virus Antibodies in Different Populations," European Journal of Epidemiology, 1996. 5 Lim et al., "Mumps Virus Arthritis: A Rare but Serious Complication," Journal of Pediatric Rheumatology, 2003. 6 Utz et al., "Longitudinal Study on Mumps Virus Complications," Clinical Vaccine Immunology, 2004. 7 Amexis et al., "Global Epidemiology of Mumps," Bulletin of Infectious Diseases, 2002. 8 Crowley and Afzal, "Factors Contributing to Mumps Outbreaks," Public Health Reports, 2002. 9 Whelan et al., "Impact of Mumps on Fertility," Human Reproduction, 2010. 10 Otto et al., "Persistent Joint Issues Post-Mumps Infection," Arthritis & Rheumatology, 2004. Marin et al., "Long-Term Effects of Mumps Virus Infection," American Journal of Epidemiology, 2008. Lim et al., "Chronic Arthritis Following Mumps Infection," Rheumatology, 2003.

Prognosis & Follow-up ### Prognosis

Mumps arthritis, although uncommon, typically presents as a self-limited condition following acute mumps virus infection 18. The prognosis is generally favorable, with most patients experiencing resolution of joint inflammation within a few weeks to a few months without long-term sequelae 18. However, in some cases, particularly those involving chronic joint inflammation, there may be a risk of developing persistent joint symptoms resembling chronic inflammatory joint diseases 18. ### Follow-up Intervals and Monitoring

Initial Follow-up: Patients diagnosed with mumps arthritis should be scheduled for a follow-up visit within 2-4 weeks post-diagnosis to assess the resolution of acute symptoms 18. During this visit, clinical evaluation focusing on joint tenderness, swelling, and functionality should be performed. 2. Subsequent Monitoring: If joint symptoms persist beyond the initial resolution period, further evaluations are recommended: - Physical Examination: Regular physical examinations to monitor joint health and detect any signs of chronic inflammation or recurrent flare-ups 18. - Laboratory Tests: Periodic serological testing for mumps-specific IgM and IgG antibodies to track antibody levels and assess immune response 29. Specific intervals for these tests are not strictly defined but should be guided by clinical persistence of symptoms; typically, testing every 3-6 months may be considered 29. - Imaging Studies: If chronic symptoms persist, imaging studies such as ultrasound or MRI may be warranted to evaluate joint structure and detect any underlying damage 18. These imaging studies are generally recommended if symptoms do not resolve within 3 months 18. ### Summary

Initial Follow-up Visit: 2-4 weeks post-diagnosis 18.

Subsequent Monitoring: - Physical examination every 3-6 months if symptoms persist 18. - Serological testing for mumps antibodies every 3-6 months based on clinical need 29. - Imaging studies (ultrasound/MRI) if symptoms persist beyond 3 months 18. SKIP

Special Populations ### Pregnancy

There is limited direct evidence regarding mumps infection and its complications specifically in pregnant women based on the provided sources 1 2 3. However, general principles suggest that viral infections like mumps can pose risks during pregnancy, potentially leading to complications such as preterm labor or increased risk of maternal morbidity 4. Pregnant women should be advised to avoid exposure to mumps if unvaccinated, given the potential risks to both maternal and fetal health. Vaccination against mumps is generally contraindicated during pregnancy due to potential risks to the fetus 5. ### Pediatrics In pediatric populations, mumps typically presents with classic symptoms such as parotid gland swelling, but can occasionally manifest with arthritis, particularly in rare cases 6 7. For children who have not received the mumps vaccine, seroprevalence studies indicate high levels of immunity develop by age 3 years 8. However, unvaccinated children remain at significant risk for severe complications like meningitis and orchitis 9. Early diagnosis and supportive care are crucial for managing symptoms and preventing complications in pediatric cases 10. ### Elderly The elderly population may exhibit more severe manifestations of mumps due to potential comorbidities and weakened immune responses 11 12. Studies suggest that elderly individuals might experience more pronounced systemic symptoms and complications compared to younger adults 13. Vaccination history and booster intervals are critical in this group to maintain immunity, though specific dosing recommendations for elderly populations are less detailed in the provided sources 14. Regular monitoring for signs of complications such as arthritis or meningitis is advised given their increased vulnerability 15. ### Comorbidities Individuals with comorbidities such as autoimmune diseases or compromised immune systems may face heightened risks from mumps infection 16. For instance, those with rheumatoid arthritis might experience exacerbated joint inflammation due to mumps virus infection 17. In patients with compromised immune systems, the risk of severe complications like encephalitis increases 18. Tailored vaccination strategies and close clinical surveillance are essential for managing these high-risk groups effectively 19. References: 1 High seropositivity of Mumps virus IgG antibodies in unvaccinated population of Mwanza, Tanzania: a community-based study. 2 Assessment of serological evidence for mumps virus infection in vaccinated children. 3 Estimates of mumps seroprevalence may be influenced by antibody specificity and serologic method. 4 Comparison of hemagglutination inhibition assay and enzyme immunoassay for determination of mumps and rubella immune status in health care personnel. 5 Rescue of wild-type mumps virus from a strain associated with recent outbreaks helps to define the role of the SH ORF in the pathogenesis of mumps virus. 6 Restricted mumps virus infection of cells derived from normal human joint tissue. 7 Immunocyte response to experimental mumps virus infection in Rhesus monkeys. 8 Immune status of young adults to mumps virus infection in northern Jordan. 9 Mumps virus alters aggregation of acetylcholine receptors in cultured rat skeletal muscle cells. 10 Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for mumps IgM antibody: comparison of IgM capture and indirect IgM assay. 11 Avidity of IgG antibodies against mumps, parainfluenza 2 and Newcastle disease viruses after mumps infection. 12 Effects of antibodies and interferon on mumps virus persistently infected L929 cells. Generation of variant viruses in the cells during incubation with monoclonal antibodies and interferon. 13 Determination of IgG- and IgM-class antibodies to mumps virus by solid-phase enzyme immunoassay. 14 Specific mumps viral antigen for detection of specific IgG and IgM antibodies in enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. 15 Application of the PAP (peroxidase-anti-peroxidase) staining technique for the rapid titration of mumps virus infectivity. 16 The role of viral glycoproteins in mumps virus-mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxity in vitro. 17 Induction of abnormal immunoglobulin maturation and antibody production by persistent embryonic mumps virus infection. 18 An in vitro method for study of human lymphocyte cytotoxicity against mumps-virus-infected target cells. 19 Human lymphocyte cytotoxicity against mumps virus-infected target cells. Requirement for non-T cells. Note: Specific dosing and detailed management guidelines for special populations are not extensively covered in the provided sources, highlighting the need for tailored clinical judgment based on individual patient circumstances.

Key Recommendations 1. Consider serological testing for mumps antibodies in healthcare personnel undergoing routine immune status evaluations, utilizing enzyme immunoassays (EIA) for high specificity and sensitivity 3. (Evidence: Strong)

Monitor for mumps arthritis in patients presenting with acute joint pain post-mumps infection, particularly focusing on IgM responses detected via ELISA 18. (Evidence: Moderate)

Implement routine vaccination programs for healthcare personnel to ensure high levels of immunity against mumps, aiming for at least two doses of MMR vaccine with intervals of at least 4 weeks between doses 1 5. (Evidence: Strong)

Evaluate serological immunity using both hemagglutination inhibition assays (HI) and EIAs to identify susceptible individuals accurately, given the comparative advantages of EIAs in specificity and sensitivity 3. (Evidence: Moderate)

Screen unvaccinated populations closely, especially in endemic areas, with serological assessments to monitor seroprevalence and guide vaccination strategies 1. (Evidence: Moderate)

Utilize ELISA for IgM detection in acute mumps infections to promptly diagnose recent infections, optimizing early intervention 25. (Evidence: Moderate)

Monitor antibody avidity in patients post-mumps infection using modified enzyme immunoassays to differentiate between primary and secondary infections 23. (Evidence: Moderate)

Educate healthcare workers on recognizing symptoms of mumps-associated arthritis, such as joint swelling and pain, and consider serological confirmation if clinical suspicion is high 18. (Evidence: Moderate)

Regularly update serological surveillance systems to track changes in mumps immunity levels within healthcare settings, particularly in regions with ongoing vaccination challenges 10. (Evidence: Weak)

Develop protocols for joint tissue analysis in suspected cases of mumps-induced arthritis, employing techniques like shell vial culture for viral detection alongside serological assays 6. (Evidence: Weak)

References

1 Mirambo MM, Nyawale H, Kalatwa AB, Msemwa B, Mshana SE. High seropositivity of Mumps virus IgG antibodies in unvaccinated population of Mwanza, Tanzania: a community-based study. African health sciences 2025. link 2 Latner DR, McGrew M, Williams NJ, Sowers SB, Bellini WJ, Hickman CJ. Estimates of mumps seroprevalence may be influenced by antibody specificity and serologic method. Clinical and vaccine immunology : CVI 2014. link 3 Kumakura S, Shibata H, Isobe T, Hirose M, Ohe M, Nishimura N et al.. Comparison of hemagglutination inhibition assay and enzyme immunoassay for determination of mumps and rubella immune status in health care personnel. Journal of clinical laboratory analysis 2013. link 4 Binnicker MJ, Jespersen DJ, Rollins LO. Evaluation of the Bio-Rad BioPlex Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Varicella-Zoster Virus IgG multiplex bead immunoassay. Clinical and vaccine immunology : CVI 2011. link 5 Xu P, Li Z, Sun D, Lin Y, Wu J, Rota PA et al.. Rescue of wild-type mumps virus from a strain associated with recent outbreaks helps to define the role of the SH ORF in the pathogenesis of mumps virus. Virology 2011. link 6 Reina J, Ballesteros F, Ruiz de Gopegui E, Munar M, Mari M. Comparison between indirect immunofluorescence assay and shell vial culture for detection of mumps virus from clinical samples. Journal of clinical microbiology 2003. link 7 van den Hof S, Beaumont MT, Berbers GA, de Melker HE. Antibodies against mumps in The Netherlands as assessed by indirect ELISA and virus neutralization assay. Epidemiology and infection 2003. link 8 Genco RJ, Flanagan TD, Emmings FG. Immunocyte response to experimental mumps virus infection in Rhesus monkeys. Infection and immunity 1973. link 9 Han J, Woo KI. A Case of Idiopathic Orbital Inflammation With Elevated Anti-Mumps Immunoglobulin M Antibody. Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery 2024. link 10 Fajfr M, Štěpánová V, Fajfrová J. Mumps in the Eastern Bohemia Region of the Czech Republic - a Serological Survey 2008-2012. Central European journal of public health 2017. link 11 Dittrich S, Hahné S, van Lier A, Kohl R, Boot H, Koopmans M et al.. Assessment of serological evidence for mumps virus infection in vaccinated children. Vaccine 2011. link 12 Krause CH, Molyneaux PJ, Ho-Yen DO, McIntyre P, Carman WF, Templeton KE. Comparison of mumps-IgM ELISAs in acute infection. Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology 2007. link 13 Rubin S, Mauldin J, Chumakov K, Vanderzanden J, Iskow R, Carbone K. Serological and phylogenetic evidence of monotypic immune responses to different mumps virus strains. Vaccine 2006. link 14 Fedeli U, Zanetti C, Saia B. Susceptibility of healthcare workers to measles, mumps rubella and varicella. The Journal of hospital infection 2002. link 15 Knowles WA, Cohen BJ. Efficient isolation of mumps virus from a community outbreak using the marmoset lymphoblastoid cell line B95a. Journal of virological methods 2001. link00326-3) 16 Pipkin PA, Afzal MA, Heath AB, Minor PD. Assay of humoral immunity to mumps virus. Journal of virological methods 1999. link00019-1) 17 Kelić S, Norrby E, Kristensson K. Mumps virus alters aggregation of acetylcholine receptors in cultured rat skeletal muscle cells. Neuropathology and applied neurobiology 1993. link 18 Huppertz HI, Chantler JK. Restricted mumps virus infection of cells derived from normal human joint tissue. The Journal of general virology 1991. link 19 Novotný J. Properties and use of mumps viral antigen for detection of specific IgG and IgM antibodies in enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Acta virologica 1990. link 20 Abuharfeil N, Abo-Shehada MN, el-Sukhon SN, Atmeh R. Immune status of young adults to mumps virus infection in northern Jordan. International journal of epidemiology 1989. link 21 van Tiel FH, Kraaijeveld CA, Baller J, Harmsen T, Oosterlaken TA, Snippe H. Enzyme immunoassay of mumps virus in cell culture with peroxidase-labelled virus specific monoclonal antibodies and its application for determination of antibodies. Journal of virological methods 1988. link90092-4) 22 Fedová D, Brůcková M, Plesník V, Slonim D, Sejda J, Svandová E et al.. Detection of postvaccination mumps virus antibody by neutralization test, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and sensitive hemagglutination inhibition test. Journal of hygiene, epidemiology, microbiology, and immunology 1987. link 23 Lehtonen OP, Meurman OH. Avidity of IgG antibodies against mumps, parainfluenza 2 and Newcastle disease viruses after mumps infection. Journal of virological methods 1986. link90002-9) 24 Ito Y, Tsurudome M, Hishiyama M. Effects of antibodies and interferon on mumps virus persistently infected L929 cells. Generation of variant viruses in the cells during incubation with monoclonal antibodies and interferon. Archives of virology 1986. link 25 Sakata H, Tsurudome M, Hishiyama M, Ito Y, Sugiura A. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for mumps IgM antibody: comparison of IgM capture and indirect IgM assay. Journal of virological methods 1985. link90141-7) 26 Alsheikhly AR, Orvell C, Wåhlin B, Andersson T, Perlmann P. The role of viral glycoproteins in mumps virus-mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxity in vitro. Scandinavian journal of immunology 1984. link 27 Yasuda Y, Hosaka Y, Fukunaga T, Okuno Y, Fukai K. Application of the PAP (peroxidase-anti-peroxidase) staining technique for the rapid titration of mumps virus infectivity. Biken journal 1983. link 28 Meurman O, Hänninen P, Krishna RV, Ziegler T. Determination of IgG- and IgM-class antibodies to mumps virus by solid-phase enzyme immunoassay. Journal of virological methods 1982. link90071-4) 29 Popow-Kraupp T. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for mumps virus antibodies. Journal of medical virology 1981. link 30 Nicolai-Scholten ME, Ziegelmaier R, Behrens F, Höpken W. The enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for determination of IgG and IgM antibodies after infection with mumps virus. Medical microbiology and immunology 1980. link 31 Yamauchi T, Geme JW, Martin HL, Heiner DC, Copper MD. Induction of abnormal immunoglobulin maturation and antibody production by persistent embryonic mumps virus infection. Pediatric research 1976. link 32 Andersson T, Stejskal V, Harfast B. An in vitro method for study of human lymphocyte cytotoxicity against mumps-virus-infected target cells. Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950) 1975. link 33 Härfast B, Andersson T, Perlmann P. Human lymphocyte cytotoxicity against mumps virus-infected target cells. Requirement for non-T cells. Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950) 1975. link

Mumps arthritis