Systematic review and meta-analysis reports a 6.8% asthma prevalence in Latin American adults, highlighting substantial methodological variation across diagnostic approaches.
Background Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease that imposes a substantial health burden in Latin America. Objective To estimate the prevalence of asthma in adults across the region and evaluate the influence of methodological variables on its estimation. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines, with searches in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE. Cross-sectional studies reporting asthma prevalence using clinical diagnostic criteria, self-report, or pulmonary function tests were included. Data selection and extraction were performed independently by two reviewers, who also assessed the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was conducted using the metaprop function of the meta package in R, applying a random-effects model with the Hartung-Knapp approximation and the Freeman-Tukey proportion transformation. The I2 statistic was used to estimate heterogeneity, and meta-regressions were performed to explore the influence of publication year and diagnostic method on prevalence. Results Twenty-four studies with 176,205 participants were included. The combined overall prevalence of asthma was 6.84% (95% CI: 5.73–8.04), with high heterogeneity (I2>90%). Studies employing self-reported medical diagnosis and validated questionnaires tended to show higher estimates, while a single study based on spirometry reported the lowest prevalence (3.86%). Additionally, a higher prevalence was observed in women compared to men. Conclusion Asthma has a significant prevalence in Latin America's adult population, although its magnitude varies according to diagnostic and sampling methods. This landscape reflects cultural and epidemiological heterogeneity, demanding specific interventions to reduce the disease burden.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Coronel et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: