Prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".