SynthesisBMC pulmonary medicine2026
Global prevalence of dyspnoea: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC pulmonary medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDyspnoea is a common subjective experience associated with decreased exercise tolerance and mortality. Although several studies have explored its prevalence in the general population, there has been limited synthesis over broad income settings, particularly low-income countries. This review and meta-analysis aims to address these gaps by reviewing the global prevalence of dyspnoea across low, middle, and high-income countries and associated factors.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were completed evaluating the prevalence of dyspnoea in the general population and associated factors including age, BMI, smoking status, underlying conditions, lung function indices and country of residence. The protocol followed PRISMA guidelines and was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022374929).
resultsOf 13,504 records screened, 56 studies were included with a total of 450,520 participants. Using the mMRC Dyspnoea Scale, (n = 43), the pooled prevalence of dyspnoea was 22.2% [95% CI 17.5-27.2]. 6.1% [95% CI 4.3-8.2] reported moderate dyspnoea (mMRC 2), 2.5% [95% CI 1.5-3.6] described moderate-severe dyspnoea (mMRC 3), and 1.2% [95% CI 0.7-1.9] reported severe dyspnoea (mMRC 4). Women reported more dyspnoea than men (6.7% vs. 4.3%). Rates of dyspnoea were higher in North America than in Australia/New Zealand (29.4% vs. 19.6%). No clear differences were noted between low-income countries and high-income countries, although data were limited.
conclusionsThis review demonstrates a high burden of dyspnoea, affecting one in five adults in the general global population. Dyspnoea prevalence was higher in women and there was significant geographical variation.
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.