Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 678

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 76 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Incidence and prevalence of patellofemoral pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Smith, Benjamin E., Selfe, James, Thacker, Damian, Hendrick, Paul, Bateman, Marcus, Moffatt, Fiona, Rathleff, Michael Skovdal, Smith, Toby O., Logan, Pip·2018·PLOS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patellofemoral pain is considered one of the most common forms of knee pain, affecting adults, adolescents, and physically active populations. Inconsistencies in reported incidence and prevalence exist and in relation to the allocation of healthcare and research funding, there is a clear need to accurately understand the epidemiology of patellofemoral pain. METHODS: An electronic database search was conducted, as well as grey literature databases, from inception to June 2017. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and appraised methodological quality. If heterogeneous, data were analysed descriptively. Where studies were homogeneous, data were pooled through a meta-analysis. RESULTS: 23 studies were included. Annual prevalence for patellofemoral pain in the general population was reported as 22.7%, and adolescents as 28.9%. Incidence rates in military recruits ranged from 9.7-571.4/1,000 person-years, amateur runners in the general population at 1080.5/1,000 person-years and adolescents amateur athletes 5.1%-14.9% over 1 season. One study reported point prevalence within military populations as 13.5%. The pooled estimate for point prevalence in adolescents was 7.2% (95% Confidence Interval: 6.3%-8.3%), and in female only adolescent athletes was 22.7% (95% Confidence Interval 17.4%-28.0%). CONCLUSION: This review demonstrates high incidence and prevalence levels for patellofemoral pain. Within the context of this, and poor long term prognosis and high disability levels, PFP should be an urgent research priority. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42016038870.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0190892

Cites

76 of 76 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 76 references

Cited by

See all 678

Metadata

Authors
Smith, B. E., Selfe, J., Thacker, D., Hendrick, P., Bateman, M., Moffatt, F., Rathleff, M. S., Smith, T. O., & Logan, P.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2018-01-11
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
e0190892
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2783371735
Cited by
678
References
76
FWCI
4.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Incidence and prevalence of patellofemoral pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0190892
The paper
Smith, B. E., Selfe, J., Thacker, D., Hendrick, P., Bateman, M., Moffatt, F., Rathleff, M. S., Smith, T. O., & Logan, P. (2018). Incidence and prevalence of patellofemoral pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190892

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.