CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,770Down syndrome and intellectual disability researchDisability Rights and RepresentationMental Health Treatment and Access

Prevalence of intellectual disability: a meta-analysis of population-based studies

Maulik, Pallab K., Mascarenhas, Maya N., Mathers, Colin D., Dua, Tarun, Saxena, Shekhar·2011·Research in Developmental Disabilities
DOI 10.1016/j.ridd.2010.12.018
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Intellectual disability is an extremely stigmatizing condition and involves utilization of large public health resources, but most data about its burden is based on studies conducted in developed countries. The aim of this meta-analysis was to collate data from published literature and estimate the prevalence of intellectual disability across all such studies. The review includes studies published between 1980 and 2009, and includes data from populations that provided an overall estimate of the prevalence of intellectual disability. Meta-analysis was done using random effects to account for heterogeneity. Sub-group analyses were also done. The prevalence of intellectual disability across all 52 studies included in the meta-analysis was 10.37/1000 population. The estimates varied according to income group of the country of origin, the age-group of the study population, and study design. The highest rates were seen in countries from low- and middle income countries. Studies based on identification of cases by using psychological assessments or scales showed higher prevalence compared to those using standard diagnostic systems and disability instruments. Prevalence was higher among studies based on children/adolescents, compared to those on adults. Higher prevalence in low and middle income group countries is of concern given the limitations in available resources in such countries to manage intellectual disability. The importance of using standardized diagnostic systems to correctly estimate the burden is underlined. The public health and research implications of this meta-analysis have been discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ridd.2010.12.018

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • If loss of function of a particular gene conferred risk that was purely specific to ASD, the mean IQ associated with de novo pathogenic variants in that gene would not be significantly different from the population mean (100), or at least from the familial background mean, and the expected rate of ID would be no different from the ID rate in the general population (~1.0%-1.3%).

    “If loss of function of a particular gene conferred risk that was purely specific to ASD, the mean IQ associated with de novo pathogenic variants in that gene would not be significantly different from the population mean (100), or at least from the familial background mean, and the expected rate of ID would be no different from the ID rate in the general population (∼1.0%–1.3%).26,27”

    From Insufficient Evidence for “Autism-Specific” Genes (2020) · cites this paper as [26]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Maulik, P. K., Mascarenhas, M. N., Mathers, C. D., Dua, T., & Saxena, S.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • World Health Organization (CH)
Corresponding author
Maulik, Pallab K.
ORCID
Venue
Research in Developmental Disabilities
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-03
Volume
32
Issue
2
Pages
419-436
ISSN
0891-4222 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ridd.2010.12.018
OpenAlex
W2058579886
Cited by
1,770
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 114 · 2025: 127 · 2024: 159 · 2023: 157 · 2022: 182 · 2021: 192 · 2020: 186 · 2019: 132 · 2018: 136 · 2017: 108 · 2016: 83 · 2015: 83 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 19
FWCI
5.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Research in Developmental Disabilities (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Down syndrome and intellectual disability research
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Rights and Representation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
intellectual disability, prevalence, low- and middle-income countries, children and adolescents, diagnostic tools, psychological assessment, public health resources
MeSH terms
Demography, Humans, Intellectual Disability, Global Health, Prevalence

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