-
Movement Disorders : Official Journal... Dec 2022The incidence and prevalence of Huntington's disease (HD) based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of 20 studies published from 1985 to 2010 was estimated at 0.38... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The incidence and prevalence of Huntington's disease (HD) based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of 20 studies published from 1985 to 2010 was estimated at 0.38 per 100,000 person-years (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16-0.94) and 2.71 per 100,000 persons (95% CI, 1.55-4.72), respectively. Since 2010, there have been many new epidemiological studies of HD. We sought to update the global estimates of HD incidence and prevalence using data published up to February 2022 and perform additional analyses based on study continent. Medline and Embase were searched for epidemiological studies of HD published between 2010 and 2022. Risk of bias was assessed using a quality assessment tool. Estimated pooled prevalence or incidence was calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis. A total of 33 studies published between 2010 and 2022 were included. Pooled incidence was 0.48 cases per 100,000 person-years (95% CI, 0.33-0.63). Subgroup analysis by continent demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of HD in Europe and North America than in Asia. Pooled prevalence was 4.88 per 100,000 (95% CI, 3.38-7.06). Subanalyses by continent demonstrated that the prevalence of HD was significantly higher in Europe and North America than in Africa. The minor increase in prevalence (more so than incidence) demonstrated in this updated review could relate to the enhanced availability of molecular testing, earlier diagnosis, increased life expectancy, and de novo mutations. Limitations include variable case ascertainment methods and lacking case validation data. © 2022 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society. Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Public Health Agency of Canada.
Topics: Humans; Female; Incidence; Prevalence; Huntington Disease; Europe; North America
PubMed: 36161673
DOI: 10.1002/mds.29228 -
PloS One 2018Patellofemoral pain is considered one of the most common forms of knee pain, affecting adults, adolescents, and physically active populations. Inconsistencies in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Patellofemoral pain is considered one of the most common forms of knee pain, affecting adults, adolescents, and physically active populations. Inconsistencies in reported incidence and prevalence exist and in relation to the allocation of healthcare and research funding, there is a clear need to accurately understand the epidemiology of patellofemoral pain.
METHODS
An electronic database search was conducted, as well as grey literature databases, from inception to June 2017. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and appraised methodological quality. If heterogeneous, data were analysed descriptively. Where studies were homogeneous, data were pooled through a meta-analysis.
RESULTS
23 studies were included. Annual prevalence for patellofemoral pain in the general population was reported as 22.7%, and adolescents as 28.9%. Incidence rates in military recruits ranged from 9.7-571.4/1,000 person-years, amateur runners in the general population at 1080.5/1,000 person-years and adolescents amateur athletes 5.1%-14.9% over 1 season. One study reported point prevalence within military populations as 13.5%. The pooled estimate for point prevalence in adolescents was 7.2% (95% Confidence Interval: 6.3%-8.3%), and in female only adolescent athletes was 22.7% (95% Confidence Interval 17.4%-28.0%).
CONCLUSION
This review demonstrates high incidence and prevalence levels for patellofemoral pain. Within the context of this, and poor long term prognosis and high disability levels, PFP should be an urgent research priority.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42016038870.
Topics: Arthralgia; Humans; Incidence; Knee Joint; Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome; Prevalence
PubMed: 29324820
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190892 -
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases Jun 2020Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) is a rare disorder caused by mutations in the dystrophin gene. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of global DMD epidemiology... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) is a rare disorder caused by mutations in the dystrophin gene. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of global DMD epidemiology is not available. This study aimed to estimate the global overall and birth prevalence of DMD through an updated systematic review of the literature.
METHODS
MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for original research articles on the epidemiology of DMD from inception until 1st October 2019. Studies were included if they were original observational research articles written in English, reporting DMD prevalence and/or incidence along with the number of individuals of the underlying population. The quality of the studies was assessed using a STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist adapted for observational studies on rare diseases. To derive the pooled epidemiological prevalence estimates, a meta-analysis was performed using random-effects logistic models for overall and birth prevalence and within two different underlying populations (i.e. all individuals and in males only), separately. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q-test along with its derived measure of inconsistency I.
RESULTS
A total of 44 studies reporting the global epidemiology of DMD were included in the systematic review and only 40 were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled global DMD prevalence was 7.1 cases (95% CI: 5.0-10.1) per 100,000 males and 2.8 cases (95% CI: 1.6-4.6) per 100,000 in the general population, while the pooled global DMD birth prevalence was 19.8 (95% CI:16.6-23.6) per 100,000 live male births. A very high between-study heterogeneity was found for each epidemiological outcome and for all underlying populations (I > 90%). The test for funnel plot asymmetry suggested the absence of publication bias. Of the 44 studies included in this systematic review, 36 (81.8%) were assessed as being of medium and 8 (18.2%) of low quality, while no study was assessed as being of high quality.
CONCLUSIONS
Generating epidemiological evidence on DMD is fundamental to support public health decision-making. The high heterogeneity and the lack of high quality studies highlights the need to conduct better quality studies on rare diseases.
Topics: Humans; Incidence; Male; Muscular Dystrophy, Duchenne; Prevalence; Rare Diseases
PubMed: 32503598
DOI: 10.1186/s13023-020-01430-8 -
JAMA Neurology Sep 2022To date, no systematic review has taken a meta-analytic approach to estimating the prevalence and incidence of tinnitus in the general population. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
To date, no systematic review has taken a meta-analytic approach to estimating the prevalence and incidence of tinnitus in the general population.
OBJECTIVE
To provide frequency estimates of tinnitus worldwide.
DATA SOURCES
An umbrella review followed by a traditional systematic review was performed by searching PubMed-MEDLINE and Embase from inception through November 19, 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Research data from the general population were selected, and studies based on patients or on subgroups of the population with selected lifestyle habits were excluded. No restrictions were applied according to date, age, sex, and country.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Relevant extracted information included type of study, time and location, end point, population characteristics, and tinnitus definition. The study followed the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) reporting guideline.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Pooled prevalence estimates of any tinnitus, severe tinnitus, chronic tinnitus, and diagnosed tinnitus as well as incidence of tinnitus were obtained using random-effects meta-analytic models; heterogeneity between studies was controlled using the χ2 test, and inconsistency was measured using the I2 statistic.
RESULTS
Among 767 publications, 113 eligible articles published between 1972 and 2021 were identified, and prevalence estimates from 83 articles and incidence estimates from 12 articles were extracted. The pooled prevalence of any tinnitus among adults was 14.4% (95% CI, 12.6%-16.5%) and ranged from 4.1% (95% CI, 3.7%-4.4%) to 37.2% (95% CI, 34.6%-39.9%). Prevalence estimates did not significantly differ by sex (14.1% [95% CI, 11.6%-17.0%] among male individuals; 13.1% [95% CI, 10.5%-16.2%] among female individuals), but increased prevalence was associated with age (9.7% [95% CI, 7.4%-12.5%] among adults aged 18-44 years; 13.7% [95% CI, 11.0%-17.0%] among those aged 45-64 years; and 23.6% [95% CI, 19.4%-28.5%] among those aged ≥65 years; P < .001 among age groups). The pooled prevalence of severe tinnitus was 2.3% (95% CI, 1.7%-3.1%), ranging from 0.5% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.7%) to 12.6% (95% CI, 11.1%-14.1%). The pooled prevalence of chronic tinnitus was 9.8% (95% CI, 4.7%-19.3%) and the pooled prevalence of diagnosed tinnitus was 3.4% (95% CI, 2.1%-5.5%). The pooled incidence rate of any tinnitus was 1164 per 100 000 person-years (95% CI, 479-2828 per 100 000 person-years).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Despite the substantial heterogeneity among studies, this comprehensive systematic review on the prevalence and incidence of tinnitus suggests that tinnitus affects more than 740 million adults globally and is perceived as a major problem by more than 120 million people, mostly aged 65 years or older. Health policy makers should consider the global burden of tinnitus, and greater effort should be devoted to boost research on tinnitus.
Topics: Female; Humans; Incidence; Male; Prevalence; Tinnitus
PubMed: 35939312
DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.2189 -
The Journal of Pain Apr 2022Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is common among older adults. This systematic review aimed to summarize: (1) the prevalence and incidence of CLBP in older adults, and (2)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Prevalence, Incidence, and Factors Associated With Non-Specific Chronic Low Back Pain in Community-Dwelling Older Adults Aged 60 Years and Older: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is common among older adults. This systematic review aimed to summarize: (1) the prevalence and incidence of CLBP in older adults, and (2) demographic, psychological, and clinical factors positively/negatively associated with prevalence/incidence of CLBP among older adults. Four databases were searched to identify relevant publications. Ten studies (31,080 older adults) were included after being screened by 5 independent reviewers using predetermined criteria. The methodological quality of these studies was evaluated by standardized tools. The quality of evidence for all factors were appraised by modified GRADE for cohort studies. Twenty-eight and 1 factors were associated with a higher prevalence and a lower 5-year cumulative incidence of CLBP, respectively. No prognostic factor was identified. There was very limited to limited evidence that females, obesity, anxiety, depression, mental disorders, self-expectation of recovery, self-perceived health status, lifestyle (smoking, daily fluoride consumption), previous falls or lower body injury, retirement/disability due to ill health, family history of body pain, comorbidity (knee osteoarthritis, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with/without hypertension), weak abdominal muscles, leg pain, leg pain intensity, widespread pain, pain interference on functioning, use of pain medication, occupational exposure (driving for >20 years, or jobs involving bending/twisting for >10 years), disc space narrowing and severe facet osteoarthritis were significantly related to a higher prevalence of CLBP in older adults. However, very limited evidence suggested that intermediate level of leisure-time physical activity was associated with a lower prevalence of CLBP in older adults. Given the aging population and limited information regarding risk factors for CLBP in older adults, future high-quality prospective studies should identify relevant risk factors to help develop proper preventive and treatment strategies. PERSPECTIVE: Despite the high prevalence of non-specific chronic low back pain among older adults, there is only very limited to limited evidence regarding factors associated with a higher prevalence of chronic low back pain in this population. Given the aging population, high-quality prospective studies are warranted to address this gap.
Topics: Aged; Chronic Pain; Female; Humans; Incidence; Independent Living; Low Back Pain; Middle Aged; Prevalence; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 34450274
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2021.07.012 -
International Journal of Nursing Studies May 2020Pressure injuries are frequently occurred adverse events in hospitals, affecting the well-being of patients and causing considerable financial burden to healthcare... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pressure injuries are frequently occurred adverse events in hospitals, affecting the well-being of patients and causing considerable financial burden to healthcare systems. However, the estimates of prevalence, incidence and hospital-acquired rate of pressure injury in hospitalised patients vary considerably in relevant published studies.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically quantify the prevalence and incidence of pressure injuries and the hospital-acquired pressure injuries rate in hospitalised adult patients and identify the most frequently occurring pressure injury stage(s) and affected anatomical location(s).
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and ProQuest databases from January 2008 to December 2018.
REVIEW METHODS
We included studies with observational, cross-sectional or longitudinal designs, reporting pressure injury among hospitalised adults (≥16 years) and published in English. Outcomes were point prevalence, incidence of pressure injuries and the hospital-acquired pressure injuries rate reported as percentages. Two reviewers independently appraised the methodological quality of included studies. Heterogeneity was assessed by using the I² statistic and random effects models were employed. Sources of heterogeneity were investigated by subgroup analysis and meta-regression.
RESULTS
Of 7,489 studies identified, 42 were included in the systematic review and 39 of them were eligible for meta-analysis, with a total sample of 2,579,049 patients. The pooled prevalence of 1,366,848 patients was 12.8% (95% CI 11.8-13.9%); pooled incidence rate of 681,885 patients was 5.4 per 10,000 patient-days (95% CI 3.4-7.8) and pooled hospital-acquired pressure injuries rate of 1,893,593 was 8.4% (95% CI 7.6-9.3%). Stages were reported in 16 studies (132,530 patients with 12,041 pressure injuries). The most frequently occurred stages were Stage I (43.5%) and Stage II (28.0%). The most affected body sites were sacrum, heels and hip. Significant heterogeneity was noted across some geographic regions. Meta-regression showed that the year of data collection, mean age and gender were independent predictors, explaining 67% variability in the prevalence of pressure injuries. The year of data collection and age alone explained 93% of variability in hospital-acquired pressure injuries rate.
CONCLUSION
This study suggested that the burden of pressure injuries remains substantial with over one in ten adult patients admitted to hospitals affected. Superficial pressure injuries, such as Stage I and II, are most common stages and are preventable. Our results highlight healthcare institutions' focus on pressure injuries globally and supports the need to dedicate resources to prevention and treatment on pressure injuries. Registration number: PROSPERO CRD42019118774.
Topics: Global Health; Hospitalization; Humans; Incidence; Pressure Ulcer; Prevalence
PubMed: 32113142
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103546 -
European Journal of Sport Science Jul 2017Currently, there is no overview of the incidence and (volleyball-specific) risk factors of musculoskeletal injuries among volleyball players, nor any insight into the... (Review)
Review
Currently, there is no overview of the incidence and (volleyball-specific) risk factors of musculoskeletal injuries among volleyball players, nor any insight into the effect of preventive measures on the incidence of injuries in volleyball. This study aimed to review systematically the scientific evidence on the incidence, prevalence, aetiology and preventive measures of volleyball injuries. To this end, a highly sensitive search strategy was built based on two groups of keywords (and their synonyms). Two electronic databases were searched, namely Medline (biomedical literature) via Pubmed, and SPORTDiscus (sports and sports medicine literature) via EBSCOhost. The results showed that ankle, knee and shoulder injuries are the most common injuries sustained while playing volleyball. Results are presented separately for acute and overuse injuries, as well as for contact and non-contact injuries. Measures to prevent musculoskeletal injuries, anterior knee injuries and ankle injuries were identified in the scientific literature. These preventive measures were found to have a significant effect on decreasing the occurrence of volleyball injuries (for instance on ankle injuries with a reduction from 0.9 to 0.5 injuries per 1000 player hours). Our systematic review showed that musculoskeletal injuries are common among volleyball players, while effective preventive measures remain scarce. Further epidemiological studies should focus on other specific injuries besides knee and ankle injuries, and should also report their prevalence and not only the incidence. Additionally, high-quality studies on the aetiology and prevention of shoulder injuries are lacking and should be a focus of future studies.
Topics: Ankle Injuries; Athletic Injuries; Cumulative Trauma Disorders; Humans; Incidence; Knee Injuries; Prevalence; Risk Factors; Shoulder Injuries; Volleyball
PubMed: 28391750
DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2017.1306114 -
Inquiry : a Journal of Medical Care... 2023Healthcare-associated infections pose one of the most severe threats to patients' health and remain a major challenge for healthcare providers globally. Among... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Healthcare-associated infections pose one of the most severe threats to patients' health and remain a major challenge for healthcare providers globally. Among healthcare-associated infections, surgical site infection is one of the most commonly reported infections. It remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality across the world. The aim of this study was to provide a pooled incidence of surgical site infection among patients on a regional and global scale. This study was conducted under the PRISMA guidelines developed for systematic review and meta-analysis. The studies were searched using electronic databases (SCOPUS, PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, DOAJ, and MedNar) from June 1st, 2022 to August 4th, 2022, using Boolean logic operators (AND, OR, and NOT), Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), and keywords. The quality of the study was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Assessment tool to determine the relevance of each included article to the study. A comprehensive meta-analysis version 3 was used to estimate the pooled prevalence of surgical site infections among the patients. A total of 2124 articles were retrieved from the included electronic databases. Finally, after applying inclusion criteria, 43 articles conducted in 39 countries were included in the current study. The global pooled incidence of SSI was found to be 2.5% (95% CI: 1.6, 3.7). Based on the subgroup analysis by WHO region and survey period, the incidence of SSI was 2.7% (95% CI: 2.2, 3.3%) and 2.5% (95% CI: 1.8, 3.5%), respectively. The highest incidence was reported in the African Region (7.2% [95% CI: 4.3, 11.8%]) and among studies conducted between 1996 and 2001 (2.9% [95% CI: 0.9%, 8.8%]). This study revealed that the overall pooled incidence of SSI was 2.5%. SSI estimates varied among the WHO regions of the world. However, the highest incidence (2.7%) was observed in the African region. This indicates that there is a need to implement safety measures, including interventions for SSI prevention to reduce SSI and improve patient safety.
Topics: Humans; Surgical Wound Infection; Incidence; Cross Infection; Prevalence
PubMed: 36964747
DOI: 10.1177/00469580231162549 -
Intensive Care Medicine Aug 2020Sepsis is recognized as a global public health problem, but the proportion due to hospital-acquired infections remains unclear. We aimed to summarize the epidemiological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Sepsis is recognized as a global public health problem, but the proportion due to hospital-acquired infections remains unclear. We aimed to summarize the epidemiological evidence related to the burden of hospital-acquired (HA) and ICU-acquired (ICU-A) sepsis.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Global Index Medicus from 01/2000 to 03/2018. We included studies conducted hospital-wide or in intensive care units (ICUs), including neonatal units (NICUs), with data on the incidence/prevalence of HA and ICU-A sepsis and the proportion of community and hospital/ICU origin. We did random-effects meta-analyses to obtain pooled estimates; inter-study heterogeneity and risk of bias were assessed.
RESULTS
Of the 13,239 studies identified, 51 met the inclusion criteria; 22 were from low- and middle-income countries. Twenty-eight studies were conducted in ICUs, 13 in NICUs, and ten hospital-wide. The proportion of HA sepsis among all hospital-treated sepsis cases was 23.6% (95% CI 17-31.8%, range 16-36.4%). In the ICU, 24.4% (95% CI 16.7-34.2%, range 10.3-42.5%) of cases of sepsis with organ dysfunction were acquired during ICU stay and 48.7% (95% CI 38.3-59.3%, range 18.7-69.4%) had a hospital origin. The pooled hospital incidence of HA sepsis with organ dysfunction per 1000 patients was 9.3 (95% CI 7.3-11.9, range 2-20.6)). In the ICU, the pooled incidence of HA sepsis with organ dysfunction per 1000 patients was 56.5 (95% CI 35-90.2, range 9.2-254.4) and it was particularly high in NICUs. Mortality of ICU patients with HA sepsis with organ dysfunction was 52.3% (95% CI 43.4-61.1%, range 30.1-64.6%). There was a significant inter-study heterogeneity. Risk of bias was low to moderate in ICU-based studies and moderate to high in hospital-wide and NICU studies.
CONCLUSION
HA sepsis is of major public health importance, and the burden is particularly high in ICUs. There is an urgent need to improve the implementation of global and local infection prevention and management strategies to reduce its high burden among hospitalized patients.
Topics: Cross Infection; Hospital Mortality; Hospitals; Humans; Incidence; Intensive Care Units; Length of Stay; Sepsis
PubMed: 32591853
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-020-06106-2 -
The Physician and Sportsmedicine Feb 2022To review the characteristics of the injuries among CrossFit® practitioners, including prevalence and incidence, nature, location, and risk factors. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To review the characteristics of the injuries among CrossFit® practitioners, including prevalence and incidence, nature, location, and risk factors.
METHODS
PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases were searched from inception through August 2020, and English-language articles reporting on CrossFit®-related injuries were included. Data including sample (sex, age, and demographics) and injuries' characteristics (prevalence, incidence rate, nature, location, percentage of injuries requiring surgery and risk factors) were extracted.
RESULTS
Overall, twenty-five studies involving a total of 12,079 CrossFit® practitioners met the inclusion criteria. The mean prevalence of injuries among the included studies was 35.3%, with an incidence rate varying between 0.2 and 18.9 per 1000 hours of training. The most injured areas were shoulder (26%), spine (24%), and knee (18%). Among the studies that reported the injuries requiring surgery, the mean percentage was 8.7%. Regarding the risk factors associated with injuries, older age, male sex, a greater body mass index, the existence of previous injuries, the lack of coach supervision, the experience on CrossFit® and the participation in competitions were reported by the studies.
CONCLUSIONS
CrossFit® training has an injury incidence rate similar to weightlifting and powerlifting. Findings from the studies suggest that the most affected areas are shoulder, spine, and knee. The limited quality of the studies prevents us from drawing solid conclusions about injury risk factors.
Topics: Athletic Injuries; Humans; Incidence; Male; Prevalence; Risk Factors; Weight Lifting
PubMed: 33322981
DOI: 10.1080/00913847.2020.1864675