MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157237331 · doi:10.7189/jogh.05.010409

Prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and analysis.

2015· review· en· W2157237331 on OpenAlexaff
Igor Rudan, Simrita Sidhu, Angeliki Papana, Shijiao Meng, Yu Xinwei, Wei Wang, Ruth M. Campbell–Page, Sandro Demaio, Harish Nair, Devi Sridhar, Evropi Τheodoratou, Ben Dowman, Davies Adeloye, Azeem Majeed, Josip Car, Harry Campbell, Kit Yee Chan

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Melbourne
KeywordsLow and middle income countriesRheumatoid arthritisMedicineSystematic reviewMEDLINEEnvironmental healthFamily medicineDeveloping countryInternal medicinePolitical scienceEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disorder that affects the small joints of the body. It is one of the leading causes of chronic morbidity in high-income countries, but little is known about the burden of this disease in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). METHODS: The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of RA in six of the World Health Organization's (WHO) regions that harbour LMIC by identifying all relevant studies in those regions. To accomplish this aim various bibliographic databases were searched: PubMed, EMBASE, Global Health, LILACS and the Chinese databases CNKI and WanFang. Studies were selected based on pre-defined inclusion criteria, including a definition of RA based on the 1987 revision of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) definition. RESULTS: Meta-estimates of regional RA prevalence rates for countries of low or middle income were 0.40% (95% CI: 0.23-0.57%) for Southeast Asian, 0.37% (95% CI: 0.23-0.51%) for Eastern Mediterranean, 0.62% (95% CI: 0.47-0.77%) for European, 1.25% (95% CI: 0.64-1.86%) for American and 0.42% (95% CI: 0.30-0.53%) for Western Pacific regions. A formal meta-analysis could not be performed for the sub-Saharan African region due to limited data. Male prevalence of RA in LMIC was 0.16% (95% CI: 0.11-0.20%) while the prevalence in women reached 0.75% (95% CI: 0.60-0.90%). This difference between males and females was statistically significant (P < 0.0001). The prevalence of RA did not differ significantly between urban and rural settings (P = 0.353). These prevalence estimates represent 2.60 (95% CI: 1.85-3.34%) million male sufferers and 12.21 (95% CI: 9.78-14.67%) million female sufferers in LMIC in the year 2000, and 3.16 (95% CI: 2.25-4.05%) million affected males and 14.87 (95% CI: 11.91-17.86%) million affected females in LMIC in the year 2010. CONCLUSION: Given that majority of the world's population resides in LMIC, the number of affected people is substantial, with a projection to increase in the coming years. Therefore, policy makers and health-care providers need to plan to address a significant disease burden both socially and economically.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations241
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and TherapiesFrench-language works237,207