The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Global Prevalence of Spondyloarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Regression Analysis
Open accessAbstract
Objective: To summarize the prevalence of spondyloarthritis (SpA) and its subtypes in the general population, and to identify demographic and methodologic characteristics that might explain heterogeneity in prevalence estimates. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed to identify relevant articles. Risk of bias was assessed and data were extracted. Pooled prevalences were calculated. Potential sources of heterogeneity were explored by subgroup analysis and meta‐regression analysis. Results: The prevalence of SpA ranged from 0.20% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.00–0.66) in South‐East Asia to 1.61% (95% CI 1.27–2.00) in Northern Arctic communities; the prevalence of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) from 0.02% (95% CI 0.00–0.21) in Sub‐Saharan Africa to 0.35% (95% CI 0.24–0.48) in Northern Arctic communities; and the prevalence of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) from 0.01% (95% CI 0.00–0.17) in the Middle East to 0.19% (95% CI 0.16–0.32) in Europe. The following characteristics were significantly associated with variation in prevalence of SpA, AS, and/or PsA: proportion of females, mean age of the sample, geographic area and setting (demographic characteristics), year of data collection, case finding, and case ascertainment (methodologic characteristics). For the other SpA subgroups, too few studies were available to conduct a meta‐analysis, but prevalence estimates of reactive arthritis (range 0.0–0.2%), SpA related to inflammatory bowel disease (range 0.0–0.1%), and undifferentiated SpA (range 0.0–0.7%) were generally low. Conclusion: SpA is a common disease, but with large variation in reported prevalence estimates, which can partly be explained by differences in demographic and methodologic characteristics. Particularly, geographic area as well as case finding account for a substantial part of the heterogeneity.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
Cited by
What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention
Hartvigsen, J., Hancock, M. J., Kongsted, A., Louw, Q., Ferreira, M. L., Genevay, S., Hoy, D., Karppinen, J., Pransky, G., Sieper, J., et al. (2018) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)30480-x · Cited by 4,652
van der Heijde, D., Baraliakos, X., Gensler, L. S., Maksymowych, W. P., Tseluyko, V., Nadashkevich, O., Abi-Saab, W., Tasset, C., Meuleners, L., Besuyen, R., et al. (2018) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32463-2 · Cited by 242
Antiphospholipid syndrome: an update for clinicians and scientists
Vreede, A. P., Bockenstedt, P. L., & Knight, J. S. (2017) · Current Opinion in Rheumatology · doi:10.1097/bor.0000000000000410 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Stolwijk, C., van Onna, M., Boonen, A., & van Tubergen, A.
- Venue
- Arthritis Care & Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-07-27
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1320-1331
- ISSN
- 0893-7524 (ISSN-L)
- 2151-464X
- 2151-4658
- OpenAlex
- W2220479222
- Cited by
- 431
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 3.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Global Prevalence of Spondyloarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Regression Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/acr.22831
- The paper
- Stolwijk, C., van Onna, M., Boonen, A., & van Tubergen, A. (2016). Global Prevalence of Spondyloarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Regression Analysis. Arthritis Care & Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.22831
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.