Epidemiology of podoconiosis in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".