Prevalence and Incidence of Uveitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Background: Although the impact of uveitis on people’s lives is clear, the frequency of this condition is unclear.Objective: To estimate the prevalence and incidence of uveitis.Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to January 2019. The quality of the included studies was critically appraised with a grading system based on the Oxford Levels of Evidence. A detailed description of the populations studied and of factors affecting estimates was undertaken. Pooled analyses were conducted using a random-effects approach and expressed as incidence rates per 100,000 with 95% confidence intervals. Subgroup analyses by geographical region were conducted along with meta-regression to analyze possible factors for heterogeneity.Results: A total of 49 studies were included and critically appraised. Twenty-two were population-based, and 27 hospital-based. Heterogeneity was substantial in terms of populations studied, methods for ascertaining uveitis, including definitions, and reporting of results. This was especially important in prevalence studies, with data ranging from 9 to 730 cases per 100,000. For incidence studies, the meta-analysis yielded a pooled incidence of 50.45 per 100.000. The meta-regression showed the geographic region as an important explanatory factor of the heterogeneity between studies.Conclusion: Population-based estimates of the epidemiology of uveitis vary widely, owing to methodologies employed, definitions of uveitis and geographical regions; the representativeness and generalizability of many epidemiological studies of uveitis are limited.

KEYWORDS:

• Incidence
• prevalence
• uveitis
• systematic review
• epidemiology

Disclosure statement

None of the authors has any financial interest or benefit that has arisen from the direct applications of this research.

Data availability

Data supporting the results are available upon request.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website

Additional information

Funding

Funding for the study was partially provided by UveCAM Project, which is sponsered by the Rheumatology  Society of Castilla La Mancha (Spain), Rheumatology Society of Castilla La Mancha (Spain).