Heterogeneity in the Estimated Prevalence of Huntingtons Disease
Thompson, A.; Quarrell, O.; Strong, M.
Show abstract
There is significant variation in estimates of Huntingtons Disease (HD) prevalence in different settings. Despite this heterogeneity, there continues to be much interest in quantitatively synthesizing prevalence estimates to produce global or regional pooled prevalence values. This systematic review was undertaken to describe and assess the sources of heterogeneity in estimated prevalence values, and to consequently evaluate the validity of pooled prevalence values produced. Observational studies from which a prevalence estimate (point or period) or cumulative incidence of HD could be calculated between 1993-2024 were sought from Medline and Embase databases. Features of included studies are described and evaluated, with sources of heterogeneity discussed. A meta-regression was conducted including predictor variables: continent, median age of population, number of years since 1993, case ascertainment method, and Healthcare Access and Quality Index score. A total of 43 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the review. Significant clinical and methodological heterogeneity between the included studies is described, including differences in case definitions and ascertainment methods, and in the estimates of disease burden calculated. There were differences in the estimated point prevalence between regions and population groups within regions, while the estimated point prevalence was shown to be increasing over time since 1993. Wide prediction intervals in the overall pooled point prevalence (95% prediction interval: 0.32 - 37.55 cases per 100,000), and the European pooled point prevalence (95% prediction interval: 1.64 - 19.18 cases per 100,000), indicate the scale of heterogeneity between studies and settings. Such heterogeneity precludes valid extrapolation of findings to settings in which HD prevalence is unknown, and greatly limits the utility of pooled prevalence values.
Matching journals
The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The prevalence of chronic kidney disease in people with severe mental illness: A systematic review protocol 89%
- Clinical features and outcomes of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 and Parkinsonian disorders: a multicentre UK-based study 88%
- A meta-analysis of transcriptomic profiles from Huntington's disease patients substantiates the pathophysiological role of CDC42, NFY, DLX1 and PRMT3 88%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- More than 50 Long-term effects of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis 88%
- Huntingtin inclusion bodies have distinct immunophenotypes and ubiquitination profiles in the Huntington's disease human cerebral cortex 88%
- Long-COVID in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-analyses 87%
Similar papers in this journal
- The Australian Parkinson’s Genetics Study (APGS) - pilot (N = 1,532) 88%
- Predictors of adverse outcome in patients with suspected COVID-19 managed in a ‘virtual hospital’ setting: a cohort study 88%
- ‘Self-Management Intervention through Lifestyle Education for Kidney health’ (the SMILE-K study): protocol for a single-blind longitudinal randomised control trial with nested pilot study 87%
Similar papers in this journal
- Nusinersen in adult patients with 5q spinal muscular atrophy: a multicenter observational cohorts’ study 89%
- Diagnostic accuracy of cerebrospinal fluid and blood biomarkers for the differential diagnosis of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease: a (network) meta-analysis 89%
- Peripherin: a novel early diagnostic and prognostic plasmatic biomarker in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis 87%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.