Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,135

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Systematic Review of Prevalence Studies on Multimorbidity: Toward a More Uniform Methodology

Open access
Fortin, M., Stewart, M., Poitras, M.-E., Almirall, J., Maddocks, H.·2012·The Annals of Family Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE: We sought to identify and compare studies reporting the prevalence of multimorbidity and to suggest methodologic aspects to be considered in the conduct of such studies. METHODS: We searched the literature for English- and French-language articles published between 1980 and September 2010 that described the prevalence of multimorbidity in the general population, in primary care, or both. We assessed quality of included studies with a modified version of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist. Results of individual prevalence studies were adjusted so that they could be compared graphically. RESULTS: The final sample included 21 articles: 8 described studies conducted in primary care, 12 in the general population, and 1 in both. All articles were of good quality. The largest differences in prevalence of multimorbidity were observed at age 75 in both primary care (with prevalence ranging from 3.5% to 98.5% across studies) and the general population (with prevalence ranging from 13.1% to 71.8% across studies). Apart from differences in geographic settings, we identified differences in recruitment method and sample size (primary care: 980-60,857 patients; general population: 1,099-316,928 individuals), data collection, and the operational definition of multimorbidity used, including the number of diagnoses considered (primary care: 5 to all; general population: 7 to all). This last aspect seemed to be the most important factor in estimating prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: Marked variation exists among studies of the prevalence of multimorbidity with respect to both methodology and findings. When undertaking such studies, investigators should carefully consider the specific diagnoses included and their number, as well as the operational definition of multimorbidity.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1370/afm.1337

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 10 references

Cited by

See all 1,135

Metadata

Authors
Fortin, M., Stewart, M., Poitras, M.-E., Almirall, J., & Maddocks, H.
Venue
The Annals of Family Medicine
Published
2012-03-01
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
142-151
ISSN
  • 1544-1709 (ISSN-L)
  • 1544-1717
OpenAlex
W2102195380
Cited by
1,135
References
10
FWCI
6.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
diamond

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 Systematic Review of Prevalence Studies on Multimorbidity: Toward a More Uniform Methodology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1370/afm.1337
The paper
Fortin, M., Stewart, M., Poitras, M.-E., Almirall, J., & Maddocks, H. (2012). A Systematic Review of Prevalence Studies on Multimorbidity: Toward a More Uniform Methodology. The Annals of Family Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1337

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.