The Prevalence of Idiopathic or Inherited Isolated Dystonia: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A systematic review of epidemiological studies of primary dystonia from 1985 and 2010 found an overall prevalence of 16.43 per 100,000 (95% CI = 12.09-22.32). Methods: We performed a systematic review of studies from 2010 and 2022 to determine if there are important differences in epidemiology between these time periods. Results: Nineteen studies were included. Incidence of cervical dystonia, blepharospasm, and oromandibular dystonia were each reported in one study; one study reported incidence for all adult onset idiopathic focal dystonias combined. Using data from 11 studies, we performed random effects meta-analyses of the prevalence of cervical dystonia (9.95 per 100,000; 95% CI = 3.51-28.17), blepharospasm (2.82 per 100,000; 95% CI = 1.12-7.12), laryngeal dystonia (0.40 per 100,000; 95% CI = 0.09-1.83), upper limb dystonia (1.27 per 100,000; 95% CI = 0.36-4.52), oromandibular dystonia (0.57 per 100,000; 95% CI = 0.15-2.15), and idiopathic or inherited isolated dystonia all subtypes combined (30.85 per 100,000; 95% CI = 5.06-187.74). All studies reported more cases of dystonia in females. There was no significant difference in prevalence by subgroup analysis based on time of study publication (1985-2010 vs. 2010-2022). Subgroup analysis of differences in prevalence by dystonia subtype by continent using all studies published (1985-2022) revealed significant regional differences in the prevalence of cervical and laryngeal dystonia. Conclusion: The incidence and prevalence of idiopathic or inherited isolated dystonia in the last decade was not significantly different from earlier reports. Population-based studies across multiple geographic areas are needed to obtain a clearer understanding of the epidemiology of this condition.
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 | 0.015 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 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".