The Journal of rheumatology. Supplement · 2011
Prevalence of rheumatic regional pain syndromes in adults from Mexico: a community survey using COPCORD for screening and syndrome-specific diagnostic criteria.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАConsensus StatementНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alvarez-Nemegyei Jose, Peláez-Ballestas Ingris, Rodríguez-Amado Jacqueline, Sanin Luz Helena, Garcia-Garcia Conrado, Garza-Elizondo Mario A, Loyola-Sanchez Adalberto, Burgos-Vargas Rubén, Goycochea-Robles Maria-Victoria
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of rheumatic regional pain syndromes (RRPS) in 3 geographical areas of México using the Community Oriented Program in the Rheumatic Diseases (COPCORD) screening methodology and validate by expert consensus on case-based definitions.
METHODS: By means of an address-based sample generated through a multistage, stratified, randomized method, a cross-sectional survey was performed on adult residents (n = 12,686; age 43.6 ± 17.3 yrs; women 61.9%) of the states of Nuevo León, Yucatán, and México City. Diagnostic criteria for specific upper (Southampton group criteria) and lower limb (ad hoc expert consensus) RRPS were applied to all subjects with limb pain as detected by COPCORD questionnaire.
RESULTS: The overall prevalence of RRPS was 5.0% (95% CI 4.7-5.4). The most frequent syndrome was rotator cuff tendinopathy (2.36%); followed by inferior heel pain (0.64%); lateral epicondylalgia (0.63%); medial epicondylalgia (0.52%); trigger finger (0.42%); carpal tunnel syndrome (0.36%); anserine bursitis (0.34%); de Quervain's tendinopathy (0.30%); shoulder bicipital tendinopathy (0.27%); trochanteric syndrome (0.11%); and Achilles tendinopathy (0.10%). There were anatomic regional variations in the prevalence of limb pain: Yucatán 3.1% (95% CI 2.5-3.6); Nuevo León 7.0% (95% CI 6.3-7.7); and México City 10.8% (95% CI 9.8-11.8). Similarly, the prevalence of RRPS showed marked geographical variation: Yucatán 2.3% (95% CI 1.8-2.8); Nuevo León 5.6% (95% CI 5.0-6.3); and México City 6.9% (95% CI 6.2-7.7).
CONCLUSION: The overall prevalence of RRPS in México was 5.0%. Geographical variations raise the possibility that the prevalence of RRPS is influenced by socioeconomic, ethnic, or demographic factors.
METHODS: By means of an address-based sample generated through a multistage, stratified, randomized method, a cross-sectional survey was performed on adult residents (n = 12,686; age 43.6 ± 17.3 yrs; women 61.9%) of the states of Nuevo León, Yucatán, and México City. Diagnostic criteria for specific upper (Southampton group criteria) and lower limb (ad hoc expert consensus) RRPS were applied to all subjects with limb pain as detected by COPCORD questionnaire.
RESULTS: The overall prevalence of RRPS was 5.0% (95% CI 4.7-5.4). The most frequent syndrome was rotator cuff tendinopathy (2.36%); followed by inferior heel pain (0.64%); lateral epicondylalgia (0.63%); medial epicondylalgia (0.52%); trigger finger (0.42%); carpal tunnel syndrome (0.36%); anserine bursitis (0.34%); de Quervain's tendinopathy (0.30%); shoulder bicipital tendinopathy (0.27%); trochanteric syndrome (0.11%); and Achilles tendinopathy (0.10%). There were anatomic regional variations in the prevalence of limb pain: Yucatán 3.1% (95% CI 2.5-3.6); Nuevo León 7.0% (95% CI 6.3-7.7); and México City 10.8% (95% CI 9.8-11.8). Similarly, the prevalence of RRPS showed marked geographical variation: Yucatán 2.3% (95% CI 1.8-2.8); Nuevo León 5.6% (95% CI 5.0-6.3); and México City 6.9% (95% CI 6.2-7.7).
CONCLUSION: The overall prevalence of RRPS in México was 5.0%. Geographical variations raise the possibility that the prevalence of RRPS is influenced by socioeconomic, ethnic, or demographic factors.