-
Journal of Periodontal Research Oct 2018The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the prevalence, incidence and risk factors of peri-implantitis in the current literature. An... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the prevalence, incidence and risk factors of peri-implantitis in the current literature. An electronic search was performed to identify publications from January 1980 until March 2016 on 9 databases. The prevalence and incidence of peri-implantitis were assessed in different subgroups of patients and the prevalences were adjusted for sample size (SSA) of studies. For 12 of 111 identified putative risk factors and risk indicators, forest plots were created. Heterogeneity analysis and random effect meta-analysis were performed for selected potential risk factors of peri-implantitis. The search retrieved 8357 potentially relevant studies. Fifty-seven studies were included in the systematic review. Overall, the prevalence of peri-implantitis on implant level ranged from 1.1% to 85.0% and the incidence from 0.4% within 3 years, to 43.9% within 5 years, respectively. The median prevalence of peri-implantitis was 9.0% (SSA 10.9%) for regular participants of a prophylaxis program, 18.8% (SSA 8.8%) for patients without regular preventive maintenance, 11.0% (SSA 7.4%) for non-smokers, 7.0% (SSA 7.0%) among patients representing the general population, 9.6% (SSA 9.6%) for patients provided with fixed partial dentures, 14.3% (SSA 9.8%) for subjects with a history of periodontitis, 26.0% (SSA 28.8%) for patients with implant function time ≥5 years and 21.2% (SSA 38.4%) for ≥10 years. On a medium and medium-high level of evidence, smoking (effect summary OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.25-2.3), diabetes mellitus (effect summary OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.4-4.5), lack of prophylaxis and history or presence of periodontitis were identified as risk factors of peri-implantitis. There is medium-high evidence that patient's age (effect summary OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.87-1.16), gender and maxillary implants are not related to peri-implantitis. Currently, there is no convincing or low evidence available that identifies osteoporosis, absence of keratinized mucosa, implant surface characteristics or edentulism as risk factors for peri-implantitis. Based on the data analyzed in this systematic review, insufficient high-quality evidence is available to the research question. Future studies of prospective, randomized and controlled type including sufficient sample sizes are needed. The application of consistent diagnostic criteria (eg, according to the latest definition by the European Workshop on Periodontology) is particularly important. Very few studies evaluated the incidence of peri-implantitis; however, this study design may contribute to examine further the potential risk factors.
Topics: Humans; Incidence; Peri-Implantitis; Prevalence; Risk Factors
PubMed: 29882313
DOI: 10.1111/jre.12562 -
International Journal of Nursing Studies Dec 2023Pressure injuries are a fundamental safety concern in older people living in nursing homes. Recent studies report a disparate body of evidence on pressure injury... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure injuries are a fundamental safety concern in older people living in nursing homes. Recent studies report a disparate body of evidence on pressure injury prevalence and incidence in this population.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically quantify the prevalence and incidence of pressure injuries among older people living in nursing homes, and to identify the most frequently occurring PI stage(s) and anatomical location(s).
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING(S)
Nursing homes, aged care, or long-term care facilities.
PARTICIPANTS
Older people, 60 years and older.
METHODS
Cross-sectional and cohort studies reporting on either prevalence or incidence of pressure injuries were included. Studies published in English from 2000 onwards were systematically searched in Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and ProQuest. Screening, data extraction and quality appraisal were undertaken independently by two or more authors and adjudicated by another. Outcomes included pressure injury point prevalence, cumulative incidence, and nursing home acquired pressure injury rate. In meta-analyses, Cochrane's Q test and the I statistic were used to explore heterogeneity. Random effects models were used in the presence of substantial heterogeneity. Sources of heterogeneity were investigated by subgroup analyses and meta-regression.
RESULTS
3384 abstracts were screened, and 47 full-text studies included. In 30 studies with 355,784 older people, the pooled pressure injury prevalence for any stage was 11.6 % (95 % CI 9.6-13.7 %). Fifteen studies with 5,421,798 older people reported the prevalence of pressure injury excluding stage I and the pooled estimate was 7.2 % (95 % CI 6.2-8.3 %). The pooled incidence for pressure injury of any stage in four studies with 10,645 older people was 14.3 % (95 % CI 5.5-26.2 %). Nursing home acquired pressure injury rate was reported in six studies with 79,998 older people and the pooled estimate was 8.5 % (95 % CI 4.4-13.5 %). Stage I and stage II pressure injuries were the most common stages reported. The heel (34.1 %), sacrum (27.2 %) and foot (18.4 %) were the three most reported locations of pressure injuries. Meta-regression results indicated a reduction in pressure injury prevalence over the years of data collection.
CONCLUSION
The burden of pressure injuries among older people in nursing homes is similar to hospitalised patients and requires a targeted approach to prevention as is undertaken in hospitals. Future studies using robust methodologies focusing on epidemiology of pressure injury development in older people are needed to conduct as the first step of preventing pressure injuries.
REGISTRATION NUMBER
PROSPERO CRD42022328367.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT
Pressure injury rates in nursing homes are comparable to hospital rates indicating the need for targeted programmes similar to those in hospitals.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Pressure Ulcer; Incidence; Prevalence; Cross-Sectional Studies; Nursing Homes
PubMed: 37801939
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2023.104605 -
Epilepsia Dec 2018The definition of drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) affects case identification and treatment, and impacts prevalence or incidence estimates and health burden estimation in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The definition of drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) affects case identification and treatment, and impacts prevalence or incidence estimates and health burden estimation in epidemiology. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the consistency between definitions of DRE in the literature and the official definition in the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) guidelines, and to estimate the incidence, prevalence, and risk factors for DRE.
METHODS
MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for observational studies of DRE published between January 1980 and July 2015. The definitions of DRE in these studies were compared with the definition in the ILAE guidelines. Random-effect model meta-analyses were used to generate pooled estimates of prevalence or incidence and pooled odds ratios of the association with risk factors.
RESULTS
Thirty-five studies met inclusion criteria, including 13 080 epilepsy patients and 3941 patients with DRE. The definition of DRE varied widely across studies, with only 12% meeting the requirements of the ILAE definition. The pooled prevalence proportion of DRE among epilepsy patients was 0.30 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19-0.42), and the pooled incidence proportion was 0.15 (95% CI 0.11-0.19). Age at onset, symptomatic epilepsy, abnormal neuroimaging findings, abnormal electroencephalography results, history of mental retardation, neuropsychiatric disorders, febrile seizure, and status epilepticus increased risk for DRE.
SIGNIFICANCE
There are limited high-quality data available on DRE. Lack of consistency in definitions limits the ability to obtain robust estimates on the burden of DRE. More data based on the ILAE definition from well-designed epidemiologic studies are needed to generate accurate and reliable results.
Topics: Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Humans; Incidence; Neuroimaging; Prevalence; Risk Factors
PubMed: 30426482
DOI: 10.1111/epi.14596 -
PLoS Medicine Aug 2021Homelessness continues to be a pressing public health concern in many countries, and mental disorders in homeless persons contribute to their high rates of morbidity and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Homelessness continues to be a pressing public health concern in many countries, and mental disorders in homeless persons contribute to their high rates of morbidity and mortality. Many primary studies have estimated prevalence rates for mental disorders in homeless individuals. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the prevalence of any mental disorder and major psychiatric diagnoses in clearly defined homeless populations in any high-income country.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We systematically searched for observational studies that estimated prevalence rates of mental disorders in samples of homeless individuals, using Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, and Google Scholar. We updated a previous systematic review and meta-analysis conducted in 2007, and searched until 1 April 2021. Studies were included if they sampled exclusively homeless persons, diagnosed mental disorders by standardized criteria using validated methods, provided point or up to 12-month prevalence rates, and were conducted in high-income countries. We identified 39 publications with a total of 8,049 participants. Study quality was assessed using the JBI critical appraisal tool for prevalence studies and a risk of bias tool. Random effects meta-analyses of prevalence rates were conducted, and heterogeneity was assessed by meta-regression analyses. The mean prevalence of any current mental disorder was estimated at 76.2% (95% CI 64.0% to 86.6%). The most common diagnostic categories were alcohol use disorders, at 36.7% (95% CI 27.7% to 46.2%), and drug use disorders, at 21.7% (95% CI 13.1% to 31.7%), followed by schizophrenia spectrum disorders (12.4% [95% CI 9.5% to 15.7%]) and major depression (12.6% [95% CI 8.0% to 18.2%]). We found substantial heterogeneity in prevalence rates between studies, which was partially explained by sampling method, study location, and the sex distribution of participants. Limitations included lack of information on certain subpopulations (e.g., women and immigrants) and unmet healthcare needs.
CONCLUSIONS
Public health and policy interventions to improve the health of homeless persons should consider the pattern and extent of psychiatric morbidity. Our findings suggest that the burden of psychiatric morbidity in homeless persons is substantial, and should lead to regular reviews of how healthcare services assess, treat, and follow up homeless people. The high burden of substance use disorders and schizophrenia spectrum disorders need particular attention in service development. This systematic review and meta-analysis has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018085216).
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42018085216.
Topics: Developed Countries; Ill-Housed Persons; Humans; Mental Disorders; Prevalence; Regression Analysis
PubMed: 34424908
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003750 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Jun 2020Running is one of the most popular sports worldwide. Despite low back pain (LBP) represents the most common musculoskeletal disorder in population and in sports, there...
BACKGROUND
Running is one of the most popular sports worldwide. Despite low back pain (LBP) represents the most common musculoskeletal disorder in population and in sports, there is currently sparse evidence about prevalence, incidence and risk factors for LBP among runners. The aims of this systematic review were to investigate among runners: prevalence and incidence of LBP and specific risk factors for the onset of LBP.
METHODS
A systematic review has been conducted according to the guidelines of the PRISMA statement. The research was conducted in the following databases from their inception to 31st of July 2019: PubMed; CINAHL; Google Scholar; Ovid; PsycINFO; PSYNDEX; Embase; SPORTDiscus; Scientific Electronic Library Online; Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The checklists of The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools were used to investigate the risk of bias of the included studies.
RESULTS
Nineteen studies were included and the interrater agreement for full-text selection was good (K = 0.78; 0.61-0.80 IC 95%). Overall, low values of prevalence (0.7-20.2%) and incidence (0.3-22%) of LBP among runners were reported. Most reported risk factors were: running for more than 6 years; body mass index > 24; higher physical height; not performing traditional aerobics activity weekly; restricted range of motion of hip flexion; difference between leg-length; poor hamstrings and back flexibility.
CONCLUSIONS
Prevalence and incidence of LBP among runners are low compared to the others running related injuries and to general, or specific population of athletes. View the low level of incidence and prevalence of LBP, running could be interpreted as a protective factor against the onset of LBP.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42018102001.
Topics: Humans; Incidence; Low Back Pain; Prevalence; Risk Factors; Running
PubMed: 32493481
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-020-03357-4 -
Journal of Global Health Jun 2019Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is the second most common retinal vascular disorder that affected 16.4 million people worldwide in 2008. The last decade has seen new... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is the second most common retinal vascular disorder that affected 16.4 million people worldwide in 2008. The last decade has seen new epidemiological data on RVO, enabling us to provide a contemporary estimation of RVO epidemiology.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Medline, Embase, GLOBAL HEALTH, World Health Organization Global Health Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure for studies that reported prevalence or incidence of RVO in the general population. The age- and sex-specific prevalence of RVO was estimated by a multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression, the incidence of RVO and potential risk factors for RVO were respectively pooled by a random-effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS
The prevalence of any RVO, branch RVO (BRVO) and central RVO (CRVO) all increased with advanced age, but didn't differ significantly between sexes. In 2015, the global prevalence of any RVO, BRVO and CRVO in people aged 30-89 years was 0.77% (95% confidence interval CI = 0.55-1.08), 0.64% (95% CI = 0.47-0.87) and 0.13% (95% CI = 0.08-0.21), equivalent to an overall of 28.06 million, 23.38 million and 4.67 million affected people. For any RVO, the pooled five-year cumulative incidence was 0.86% (95% CI = 0.70-1.07) and the pooled ten-year cumulative incidence was 1.63% (95% CI = 1.38-1.92). Hypertension was the strongest risk factor for any RVO, with a meta- odds ratio (OR) of 2.82 (95% CI = 2.12-3.75).
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides an updated summary of RVO epidemiology in the general population. More epidemiological studies worldwide are still needed to better understand the global disease burden of RVO.
Topics: Global Health; Humans; Incidence; Prevalence; Retinal Vein Occlusion; Risk Factors
PubMed: 31131101
DOI: 10.7189/jogh.09.010427 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Nov 2019To provide the level and trends of prevalence, incidence and disability adjusted life years (DALYs) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in 195 countries from 1990 to 2017 by...
OBJECTIVES
To provide the level and trends of prevalence, incidence and disability adjusted life years (DALYs) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in 195 countries from 1990 to 2017 by age, sex, Socio-demographic Index (SDI; a composite of sociodemographic factors) and Healthcare Access and Quality (an indicator of health system performance) Index.
METHODS
Data from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors study (GBD) 2017 were used. GBD 2017 modelled the burden of RA for 195 countries from 1990 to 2017, through a systematic analysis of mortality and morbidity data to estimate prevalence, incidence and DALYs. All estimates were presented as counts and age-standardised rates per 100 000 population, with uncertainty intervals (UIs).
RESULTS
Globally, the age-standardised point prevalence and annual incidence rates of RA were 246.6 (95% UI 222.4 to 270.8) and 14.9 (95% UI 13.3 to 16.4) in 2017, which increased by 7.4% (95% UI 5.3 to 9.4) and 8.2% (95% UI 5.9 to 10.5) from 1990, respectively. However, the age-standardised rate of RA DALYs per 100 000 population was 43.3 (95% UI 33.0 to 54.5) in 2017, which was a 3.6% (95% UI -9.7 to 0.3) decrease from the 1990 rate. The age-standardised prevalence and DALY rates increased with age and were higher in females; the rates peaked at 70-74 and 75-79 age groups for females and males, respectively. A non-linear association was found between age-standardised DALY rate and SDI. The global age-standardised DALY rate decreased from 1990 to 2012 but then increased and reached higher than expected levels in the following 5 years to 2017. The UK had the highest age-standardised prevalence rate (471.8 (95% UI 428.9 to 514.9)) and age-standardised incidence rate (27.5 (95% UI 24.7 to 30.0)) in 2017. Canada, Paraguay and Guatemala showed the largest increases in age-standardised prevalence rates (54.7% (95% UI 49.2 to 59.7), 41.8% (95% UI 35.0 to 48.6) and 37.0% (95% UI 30.9 to 43.9), respectively) and age-standardised incidence rates (48.2% (95% UI 41.5 to 55.1), 43.6% (95% UI 36.6 to 50.7) and 36.8% (95% UI 30.4 to 44.3), respectively) between 1990 and 2017.
CONCLUSIONS
RA is a major global public health challenge. The age-standardised prevalence and incidence rates are increasing, especially in countries such as Canada, Paraguay and Guatemala. Early identification and treatment of RA is vital especially among females, in order to reduce the ongoing burden of this condition. The quality of health data needs to be improved for better monitoring of disease burden.
Topics: Age Distribution; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Female; Global Burden of Disease; Humans; Incidence; Male; Prevalence; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Risk Factors; Sex Distribution
PubMed: 31511227
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215920 -
Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice Mar 2022We aimed to conduct a systematic review of published studies on the incidence of type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents aged under 20 years and provide worldwide...
AIMS
We aimed to conduct a systematic review of published studies on the incidence of type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents aged under 20 years and provide worldwide incidence estimates for 2021.
METHODS
We used MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify studies reporting type 2 diabetes incidence in children and adolescents published between Jan 2000 and April 2021. We used a negative binomial regression model to develop a prediction equation to estimate incidence rates from country characteristics. We applied the resulting incidence predictions to country population data to estimate numbers of incident cases in children and adolescents by International Diabetes Federation (IDF) region and World Bank income classification group.
RESULTS
We estimate that there are approximately 41,600 new cases of diagnosed type 2 diabetes among children and adolescents in 2021 worldwide. Around 30% and 40% of the worldwide total incident cases are in IDF Western Pacific region and in World Bank upper-middle-income countries, respectively. The three countries with the highest estimated number of incident cases are China, India, and United States of America.
CONCLUSIONS
The number of newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents is substantial. More reliable data are needed to track the incidence of type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents.
Topics: Adolescent; Aged; Child; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Global Health; Humans; Incidence; Models, Statistical; Prevalence
PubMed: 35189261
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2022.109785 -
International Wound Journal Nov 2023Venous leg ulcers (VLU) represent a major public health challenge. Little is known about the prevalence and incidence of VLU internationally. Published studies are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Venous leg ulcers (VLU) represent a major public health challenge. Little is known about the prevalence and incidence of VLU internationally. Published studies are usually reporting different estimates because of disparities in study designs and measurement methods. Therefore, we conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to identify the prevalence and incidence of VLU internationally and to characterise the population as reported in these studies. Studies were identified from searches in Medline (PubMed), CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, LiSSa (Littérature Scientifique en Santé), Google Scholar and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews up to November 2022. Studies were included if their primary outcomes were reported as a period prevalence or point prevalence or cumulative incidence or incidence VLU rate. Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, 10 reporting estimates of prevalence, three reporting both prevalence and incidence estimates and one incidence. All were included in meta-analyses. The results show a pooled prevalence of 0.32% and a pooled incidence of 0.17%. Our results highlighted an extreme heterogeneity across effect sizes for both prevalence and incidence, which prevent a meaningful interpretation of pooled indexes and argue for further studies with specific prevalence-type reported and target population under study.
Topics: Humans; Prevalence; Incidence; Varicose Ulcer
PubMed: 37293810
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14272 -
Journal of the American Medical... Nov 2023The primary objective of this study was to systematically review and meta-analyze the incidence and consequential morbidity and mortality from falls in skilled nursing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of this study was to systematically review and meta-analyze the incidence and consequential morbidity and mortality from falls in skilled nursing facilities. Our secondary objective is to synthesize current evidence on risk factors for injurious falls.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS
Older adults residing in skilled nursing facilities or similar settings.
METHODS
We completed study screening, data extraction, and quality assessment in duplicate. Random effects models were used for meta-analysis of fall incidence rates and proportions of outcomes per fall. Sensitivity analysis and meta-regression were completed to assess differences based on study design, quality, and population characteristics. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias tools were used to assess quality of observational and intervention-based studies, respectively. The GRADE tool was used to evaluate strength of evidence for fall risk factors.
RESULTS
We identified 3103 unique references, of which 38 were included in systematic review and 37 in meta-analysis. Pooled incidence of falls was 121 per 100 person-years (95% CI 86-170). Outcomes of transfer to hospital, admission to hospital, overall injury, head injury, fracture, 30-day mortality, death in hospital, and disability were reported by included studies. Sensitivity analysis indicated no significant difference in fall rates between study designs. Meta-regression indicated no significant relationship between fall rate and age or sex; however, a weak positive correlation was identified with increasing prevalence of dementia. No fall risk factors were supported by high-quality evidence.
CONCLUSION/IMPLICATIONS
Our study confirms that falls in skilled nursing facilities are common and cause significant morbidity, mortality and health system use. As populations in high-income countries age, falls will become increasingly prevalent. Future research should be directed at preventing injurious falls and determining when hospital care will benefit a faller.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Accidental Falls; Incidence; Skilled Nursing Facilities; Fractures, Bone; Hospitals
PubMed: 37625452
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2023.07.012