The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A meta-analysis of sex differences prevalence, incidence and severity of osteoarthritis
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE To resolve uncertainty regarding sex differences in osteoarthritis (OA) by performing a meta-analysis of sex differences in OA prevalence, incidence and severity. METHODS Standard search strategies for population-based studies of OA providing sex-specific data. Random effects meta-analysis to provide pooled male vs female risk and rate ratios for prevalent and incident OA, and standardized mean differences (SMD) for OA severity. Meta-regression was used to investigate sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS Males had a significantly reduced risk for prevalent OA in the knee [Risk Ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% CI 0.53-0.75] and hand [RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73-0.90] but not for other sites. Males aged <55 years had a greater risk of prevalent cervical spine OA [RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.18-1.41]. Males also had significantly reduced rates of incident OA in the knee [Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.94] and hip [IRR 0.64, 95% CI 0.48-0.86], with a trend for hand [IRR 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35-1.20]. Females, particularly those > or = 55 years, tended to have more severe OA in the knee but not other sites. Heterogeneity in the estimates of sex differences in prevalence was substantially explained by age and other study design factors including method of OA definition. CONCLUSIONS The results demonstrate the presence of sex differences in OA prevalence and incidence, with females generally at a higher risk. Females also tend to have more severe knee OA, particularly after menopausal age. The site differences indicate the need for further studies to explore mechanisms underlying OA.
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 in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
Cited by
Sex, gender, and pain: a review of recent clinical and experimental findings
Fillingim, R. B., King, C. D., Ribeiro-Dasilva, M. C., Rahim-Williams, B., & Riley, J. L. (2009) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2008.12.001 · Cited by 2,766
Epidemiology and burden of osteoarthritis
Litwic, A., Edwards, M. H., Dennison, E. M., & Cooper, C. (2013) · British Medical Bulletin · doi:10.1093/bmb/lds038 · Cited by 1,315
Zhang, W., Doherty, M., Leeb, B. F., Alekseeva, L., Arden, N. K., Bijlsma, J. W., Dinçer, F., Dziedzic, K., Häuselmann, H. J., Herrero-Beaumont, G., et al. (2007) · Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases · doi:10.1136/ard.2006.062091 · Cited by 1,338
Cellular senescence in osteoarthritis pathology
McCulloch, K., Litherland, G. J., & Rai, T. S. (2017) · Aging Cell · doi:10.1111/acel.12562 · Cited by 367
Shukla, H., Nair, Sr., & Thakker, D. (2017) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1177/1357633x16628996 · Cited by 186
Metadata
- Authors
- Srikanth, V. K., Fryer, J. L., Zhai, G., Winzenberg, T. M., Hosmer, D., & Jones, G.
- Venue
- Osteoarthritis and Cartilage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2005-09
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 769-781
- ISSN
- 1063-4584 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2047734268
- Cited by
- 1,321
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 2.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: A meta-analysis of sex differences prevalence, incidence and severity of osteoarthritis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.joca.2005.04.014
- The paper
- Srikanth, V. K., Fryer, J. L., Zhai, G., Winzenberg, T. M., Hosmer, D., & Jones, G. (2005). A meta-analysis of sex differences prevalence, incidence and severity of osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2005.04.014
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.