Cited by 32Connective tissue disorders researchOral and gingival health researchDermatological and Skeletal Disorders

Prevalence of joint hypermobility in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Motalebi, Mohsen, Sobhani-Eraghi, Amir, Sarreshtehdari, Siavash, Molazem-Sanandaji, Borzooyeh, Hasanlu, Zahra·2020·Journal of Research in Medical Sciences

Abstract

Background: The inconsistent results of different studies regarding the prevalence of joint hypermobility (JH) or joint laxity in children and adolescents made us conduct a meta-analysis on the prevalence of JH in this age group. Materials and Methods: We searched electronic databases including Trip, Scopus, Medline, Embase, PubMed, and Google Scholar; some Iranian databases including Iran Medex and Magiran; and Scientific Information Database to find studies in which the prevalence of JH in children and adolescents had been reported since January 1990 to April 2017. In this process, two researchers evaluated the articles separately while they were not aware of each other's method, and they extracted and matched the information. Results: Necessary data of twenty studies (15,097 boys and 6048 girls) were entered into this meta-analysis. The age range in these studies was 3–19 years. According to the meta-analysis conducted on the twenty studies, it was determined that the total prevalence of JH among children and adolescents was 34.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 33.3%–34.8%). Based on the results obtained from the studies, a significant heterogeneity (I2 index equals to 99,415 and P ≤ 0.001) was shown, so we used random-effects model; moreover, the overall assessment of studies showed a statistically significant publication bias (P = 0.02). In total, the prevalence in girls was equal to 32.5% (95% CI: 31.4%–33.7%), and in boys, it was equal to 18.1% (95% CI: 17.2%–19.1%). Conclusion: According to this meta-analysis, studies showed high heterogeneity, and the prevalence of JH in children and adolescents around the world was equal to 34.1% (95% CI: 33.3%–34.8%) in total, whereas it was higher in girls and lower in older ages.

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 · 10.4103/jrms.jrms_983_19

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Evidence from the literature was reviewed although limited because of varying definitions of GJH and diagnostic criteria, precluding clinically meaningful systematic reviews.

    “Initially, evidence from the literature was reviewed although limited because of varying definitions of GJH and diagnostic criteria, precluding clinically meaningful systematic reviews [10].”

    From Pediatric joint hypermobility: a diagnostic framework and narrative review (2023) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Discussion and Limitation sections say that differing diagnostic criteria and cutoffs caused heterogeneity and prevented the authors from including some studies. But the paper conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 20 studies; it does not say those differences precluded clinically meaningful systematic reviews. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The prevalence of GJH in children and young adults under the age of 19 is 32.5% for girls and 18.1% for boys, with a prevalence of JH around the world at 34.1%.

    “The prevalence of GJH in children and young adults under the age of 19 is 32.5% for girls and 18.1% for boys, with a prevalence of JH around the world at 34.1% in this study.[15]”

    From Hypermobility spectrum disorders: A review (2023) · cites this paper as [15]

  • GJH appears to be more likely in younger females and less likely in older males.

    “GJH also appears to be more likely in younger females and less likely in older males.[15]”

    From Hypermobility spectrum disorders: A review (2023) · cites this paper as [15]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Motalebi, M., Sobhani-Eraghi, A., Sarreshtehdari, S., Molazem-Sanandaji, B., & Hasanlu, Z.
Affiliations
  • Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences (IR)
  • Iran University of Medical Sciences (IR)
Corresponding author
Motalebi, Mohsen
Venue
Journal of Research in Medical Sciences
Published
2020
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
104
ISSN
1735-1995 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3106721272
Cited by
32
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5
FWCI
0.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • Journal of Research in Medical Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Connective tissue disorders research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Oral and gingival health research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Dermatological and Skeletal Disorders
Keywords
joint hypermobility, joint laxity, prevalence, children, adolescents, sex differences, age differences, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome

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