Systematic review highlights increased incidence of intracranial neoplasms in Nigeria, suggesting regional disparities.
Background Intracranial neoplasms, encompassing benign and malignant tumors, remain a significant health concern worldwide. This review systematically examines hospital-based reports of intracranial neoplasms in Nigeria from 1960 to July 2024, highlighting their distribution, demographics, and temporal trends. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines, studies published from 1960 onward were identified through PubMed, Google Scholar, and African Journals Online. Eligible studies reported incidence, prevalence, or demographic data of intracranial neoplasms in Nigeria. Extracted data were pooled for meta-analysis to estimate aggregated incidence and prevalence. Results Forty-five studies comprising 3,517 cases were included. Pooled extrapolated prevalence was 3.22 (95% CI: 1.66–5.22), while compounded 10-yearly incidence was 3.66 (95% CI: 1.67–6.32). Reported incidence increased from 2.18% (1960–1969) to 4.08% (2000–2009) and 4.84% (2010–2019). Gliomas, meningiomas, and pituitary adenomas were the most frequent tumors. Among adults, meningioma predominated, followed by glioma and pituitary adenoma, whereas in children, gliomas were most common, followed by medulloblastoma and craniopharyngioma. Male predominance was observed (male-to-female ratio 1.17:1), with peak cases in the fourth to sixth decades. Regionally, southern Nigeria (southeast and southwest) showed higher incidence, reflecting disparities in diagnostic capacity and reporting compared to the north. Conclusion Reported intracranial neoplasms in Nigeria have increased over the decades, with a prevalence of 3.22 and distinct demographic and geographic patterns. Strengthening diagnostic infrastructure, improving reporting systems, and establishing a national registry are essential for better understanding and management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alare et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: