Global prevalence of onychomycosis in general and special populations: An updated perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Onychomycosis is a chronic nail disorder commonly seen by healthcare providers; toenail involvement in particular presents a treatment challenge. OBJECTIVE: To provide an updated estimate on the prevalence of toenail onychomycosis. METHODS: We conducted a literature search using PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. Studies reporting mycology-confirmed diagnoses were included and stratified into (a) populations-based studies, and studies that included (b) clinically un-suspected and (c) clinically suspected patients. RESULTS: A total of 108 studies were included. Based on studies that examined clinically un-suspected patients (i.e., with or without clinical features suggestive of onychomycosis), the pooled prevalence rate of toenail onychomycosis caused by dermatophytes was 4% (95% CI: 3-5) among the general population; special populations with a heightened risk include knee osteoarthritis patients (RR: 14.6 [95% CI: 13.0-16.5]), chronic venous disease patients (RR: 5.6 [95% CI: 3.7-8.1]), renal transplant patients (RR: 4.7 [95% CI: 3.3-6.5]), geriatric patients (RR: 4.7 [95% CI: 4.4-4.9]), HIV-positive patients (RR: 3.7 [95% CI: 2.9-4.7]), lupus erythematosus patients (RR: 3.1 [95% CI: 1.2-6.3]), diabetic patients (RR: 2.8 [95% CI: 2.4-3.3]) and hemodialysis patients (RR: 2.8 [95% CI: 1.9-4.0]). The prevalence of onychomycosis in clinically suspected patients was significantly higher likely due to sampling bias. A high degree of variability was found in a limited number of population-based studies indicating that certain pockets of the population may be more predisposed to onychomycosis. The diagnosis of non-dermatophyte mould onychomycosis requires repeat sampling to rule out contaminants or commensal organisms; a significant difference was found between studies that performed single sampling versus repeat sampling. The advent of PCR diagnosis results in improved detection rates for dermatophytes compared to culture. CONCLUSION: Onychomycosis is an underrecognized healthcare burden. Further population-based studies using standardized PCR methods are warranted.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".