Worldwide estimation of restless legs syndrome: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of prevalence in the general adult population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression assessed the prevalence of restless legs syndrome (RLS) in the general adult population. Studies identified in Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycInfo between January 2000 and February 2022 were included if they used a case-control or cross-sectional design and reported data regarding the prevalence of RLS. The protocol was pre-registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42022300709). A total of 97 studies including 483,079 participants from 33 different countries met the eligibility criteria. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the methodological quality, and the fill-and-trim method was used to correct probable publication bias, while the jack-knife method was performed to assess small study effect. The corrected overall pooled prevalence of RLS was 3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4%-3.8%). The pooled prevalence of RLS syndrome was affected by methodological quality (no data from non-respondents in the included studies), gender (higher among women), study design (lower prevalence in case-control versus cohort and cross-sectional studies). The figures for corrected pooled prevalence among men, women, alcohol consumers and smokers were 2.8% (95% CI 2%-3.7%); 4.7% (95% CI 3.2%-6.3%); 1.4% (95% CI 0%-4.2%); and 2.7% (95% CI 0%-5.3%), respectively. The prevalence among male and female participants was lower in community-based versus non-community-based studies. Moreover, the prevalence was higher in developed versus developing countries and among elders versus adults. In conclusion, RLS is a common disorder in the general adult population, with a higher prevalence in women; however, prevalence data are affected by study design and quality.
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 | 0.027 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.051 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".