4.5 Review

Incidence and prevalence of neurofibromatosis type 1 and 2: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

ORPHANET JOURNAL OF RARE DISEASES
Volume 18, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13023-023-02911-2

Keywords

Neurofibromatosis 1; Neurofibromatosis 2; Incidence rate; Prevalence rate

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study provides updated estimates of the incidence and prevalence of NF1 and NF2, highlighting a potential underestimation of NF1 prevalence. More studies are needed to determine the prevalence of NF2, and these findings can help in healthcare planning and allocation.
Objective To obtain updated estimates of the incidence and prevalence of neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) and type 2 (NF2). Study design We conducted a systematic search of NF1 and NF2 incidence or prevalence studies, in OVID Medline, OVID Embase, Web of Science, and Cinahl. Studies were appraised with the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal tool. Pooled incidence and prevalence rates were estimated through random-effects meta-analysis. Results From 1,939 abstracts, 20 studies were fully appraised and 12 were included in the final review. Pooled NF1 prevalence was 1 in 3,164 (95%CI: 1 in 2,132-1 in 4,712). This was higher in studies that screened for NF1, compared to identification of NF1 through medical records (1 in 2,020 and 1 in 4,329, respectively). NF1 pooled birth incidence was 1 in 2,662 (95%CI: 1 in 1,968-1 in 3,601). There were only 2 studies on NF2 prevalence, so data were not pooled. Pooled NF2 birth incidence was 1.08 per 50,000 births (95%CI: 1 in 32,829-1 in 65,019). Conclusion We present updated estimates of the incidence and prevalence of NF1 and NF2, to help plan for healthcare access and allocation. The prevalence of NF1 from screening studies is higher than from medical record studies, suggesting that the disease may be under recognized. More studies are needed regarding the prevalence of NF2.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available