IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0133858.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prevalence of Arthritis in Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Anthony Usenbo
  • Veronika Kramer
  • Taryn Young
  • Alfred Musekiwa

Abstract

Objective: In this systematic review, we estimate the prevalence of six types of arthritis in Africa; namely rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, juvenile arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, gout, and ankylosing spondylitis. Methods: We comprehensively searched literature on 31 August 2014 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library to identify eligible studies from 1975 up to 31 July 2014. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and appraised studies. We carried out random effects meta-analysis of prevalence of arthritis and assessed heterogeneity through subgroup analyses. We performed separate analyses for population- and hospital-based studies, as well as rural and urban settings. Main Findings: We included 27 cross-sectional studies (20 population-based and 7 hospital-based) from Africa reporting on the prevalence of arthritis. The majority of the studies were from South Africa (44.4%, 12/27). Rheumatoid arthritis in urban settings ranged from 0.1% in Algeria, 0.6% in the DRC, to a meta-analysis overall prevalence of 2.5% in South Africa, and in rural settings ranged from a meta-analysis overall prevalence of 0.07% in South Africa, 0.3% in Egypt, to 0.4% in Lesotho. Osteoarthritis was the most prevalent form of arthritis and in urban settings it was 55.1% in South Africa and in rural settings, all in South Africa, ranged from 29.5%, 29.7%, up to 82.7% among adults aged over 65 years. Other results include highest prevalence of 33.1% for knee osteoarthritis in rural South Africa, 0.1% for ankylosing spondylitis in rural South Africa, 4.4% for psoriatic arthritis in urban South Africa, 0.7% for gout in urban South Africa, and 0.3% for juvenile idiopathic arthritis in urban Egypt. A third of the included studies had a low risk of bias (33.3%, 9/27), 40.8% (11/27) moderate risk, and 25.9% (7/27) had a high risk of bias. Conclusions: In this systematic review, we have identified the paucity of latest prevalence data on arthritis in Africa. More studies are needed to address the prevalence and the true burden of this disease in Africa.

Suggested Citation

  • Anthony Usenbo & Veronika Kramer & Taryn Young & Alfred Musekiwa, 2015. "Prevalence of Arthritis in Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-19, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0133858
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133858
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133858
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133858&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0133858?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xueshan Sun & Xuemei Zhen & Xiaoqian Hu & Yuanyuan Li & Shuyan Gu & Yuxuan Gu & Hengjin Dong, 2019. "Osteoarthritis in the Middle-Aged and Elderly in China: Prevalence and Influencing Factors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-18, November.
    2. Herbert Chikafu & Moses J. Chimbari, 2020. "Levels and Correlates of Physical Activity in Rural Ingwavuma Community, uMkhanyakude District, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-13, September.
    3. Mario J Olivera & Johana A Fory & Julián F Porras & Giancarlo Buitrago, 2019. "Prevalence of Chagas disease in Colombia: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-18, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0133858. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.