MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386779687 · doi:10.1177/20503121231193602

Epidemiology of podoconiosis in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4386779687 on OpenAlex
Temesgen Lera Abiso, Amene Abebe Kerbo, Eskinder Wolka Woticha

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSAGE Open Medicine · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParasitic Diseases Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisConfidence intervalStudy heterogeneityEnvironmental healthDemographyPooled analysisEpidemiologyPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Podoconiosis, one of the neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), affects barefoot people in impoverished regions and contributes to poverty by having negative impacts on economic output, education, and disability. People who have the disease waste nearly half of all of their productive workdays. There is limited evidence available on prevalence of podoconiosis in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Therefore, the aim of this research was to determine the pooled prevalence of podoconiosis in the SSA over the last 10 years. Methods: Studies were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Google by using a combination of search terms with Boolean operators. All authors independently assessed each study’s quality using the modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for cross-sectional studies. STATA Version 14 was used to conduct the statistical analysis. The random-effect approach of meta-analysis was used. To test for heterogeneity, I-Squared ( I 2 ) statistics were employed and sensitivity analysis with a leave-one-out was done. Result: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, a total of 16 publications with 2,195,722 individuals were included. The pooled prevalence of podoconiosis was 2.66 (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.24, 3.10) with heterogeneity index ( I 2 ) of 99.9%. Walking barefoot adjusted odd ratio (AOR) 5.35 (95% CI: 1.65, 9.05), p = 0.001, not washing feet with soap and water regularly AOR 2.8 (95% CI: 1.16, 4.44, p = 0.001), and an increased age AOR 2.23 (95% CI: 1.25, 5.58) were factors significantly associated with the prevalence of podoconiosis. Conclusion: This study revealed that pooled prevalence of podoconiosis was considerable in SSA. Age, being barefoot, and failing to wash one’s feet with soap and water have been identified to be factors that were significantly associated with the prevalence of podoconiosis. Therefore, creating awareness on shoe wearing and providing shoes in communication with supporting organizations in podoconiosis prevalent areas, and early diagnosis based on family history are needed for the prevention of podoconiosis

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0280.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.433
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.097 · 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