4.3 Article

Prevalence of knee osteoarthritis, risk factors, and quality of life: The Fifth Korean National Health And Nutrition Examination Survey

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RHEUMATIC DISEASES
Volume 20, Issue 7, Pages 809-817

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1756-185X.12795

Keywords

epidemiology; osteoarthritis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AimAlthough there have been regional population-based studies on the prevalence of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) and its risk factors in South Koreans, those studies in common had limited external validity. This study aims to estimate the national prevalence of KOA and its risk factors using a complex sampling design. MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study including 9512 participants aged 50 years of The Fifth Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, who were selected using two-step stratified clustered equal-probability systematic sampling. Radiographic KOA (RKOA) was defined as a Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2. Symptoms of KOA were evaluated through a health interview. Obesity was defined as a body mass index 27.5 kg/m(.)(2) Quality of life was measured by the Korean version of European Quality of Life Questionnaire (EQ-5D). ResultsThe prevalence of RKOA was 21.1% (95% CI: 19.6-22.8%) in men, and 43.8% (42.0-45.6%) in women. The prevalence of symptomatic RKOA (SRKOA) was 4.4% (3.8-5.2%) and 19.2% (17.9-20.6%) in men and women, respectively. The EQ-5D index was lower in participants with KOA. When plotted against mean age and prevalence of obesity, regions with a higher mean age and prevalence of obesity had higher prevalence of KOA, which was also observed at the individual level. The prevalence of SRKOA was 36.6% (29.7-44.1%) in women in Jeju province. ConclusionThe prevalence of SRKOA in women reached 36.6% in high-risk groups accompanied by low quality of life. The results suggest that the disease burden of KOA is high in South Korea.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available