SynthesisArthritis care & research2026
Generalized Joint Hypermobility in Adults: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis to Identify Data-Driven Cut-offs Using the Beighton Score.
Synthesis in Arthritis care & research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to systematically review the literature and undertake a meta-analysis to describe joint hypermobility, measured by Beighton score, in the general adult population and identify appropriate cut-offs to use for screening for generalized joint hypermobility (GJH).
methodsWe searched Allied and Complementary Medicine, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL from inception to June 2024. We included studies reporting Beighton score in the general population and adults ≥18 years. We extracted country of data collection, age, sex, and Beighton score data. Data were grouped into participant ages. Meta-analysis was performed when two or more studies were available. We considered 2.5% prevalence as an indicator for typical variance.
resultsThere were 46 studies (n = 23,000), with 38 studies included in the age group analysis and 45 studies included in the analysis by sex. Overall, GJH prevalence at six or more of nine was 2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6-6.6) and considered the threshold score indicating GJH outside typical variance. Subanalysis of age groups indicated a prevalence of 5.0% (95% CI 1.2-18.0) at six or more for young adults (18-25 years). For adults (26-65 years), five or more indicated a prevalence of 1.5% (95% CI 0.2-9.5), and older adults (≥65 years) had a prevalence of 6.5% (95% CI 5.5-7.7) at four or more, higher than the threshold, but there were insufficient data for meta-analysis of five or more. There were no statistically significant differences between female and male subjects at any cut-off (all P ≥ 0.17).
conclusionBeighton score cut-offs should vary with age. For adults 18 to 25 years old, 26 to 65 years old, and >65 years old, Beighton score cut-offs to screen for GJH should be six or more of nine, five or more of nine, and four or more of nine, respectively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.