Evidence Hub

Global prevalence and sex differences in rheumatic heart disease: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis

Mutarelli A, Pantaleao AN, Melo PHC, Nogueira W, Nogueira A, Felix N, Generoso G, Cardoso R et al.

Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025

215,552 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Background: Rheumatic heart disease (RHD), a sequela of acute rheumatic fever (ARF), remains as the leading cause of acquired cardiac disease in children, posing a significant burden to health systems, especially in low-to-middle-income countries. While ARF shows equal prevalence among sexes in children, clinically manifest RHD in adulthood is strikingly more prevalent in females, with at least a 2:1 ratio. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the global prevalence of RHD and sex disparities alongside risk factors.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Lilacs were searched for cross-sectional studies on RHD prevalence in individuals aged 5-20, evaluated through echocardiogram-based screening in endemic areas. Studies relying on auscultation were excluded. RHD was defined as borderline/definite by 2012 WHF criteria or possible/probable/definite by WHO criteria.

Results: Fifty-eight studies with 215,552 subjects were included. Echo-detected RHD prevalence was 24/1,000 (95%-CI: 20-30) globally. Subgroup analyses showed consistently lower RHD prevalence in males (RR: 0.70; 95%-CI: 0.61-0.80; p p p = 0.03), medium-high-income families (RR: 0.57; 95%-CI: 0.41-0.81; p p = 0.03) exhibited reduced RHD prevalence.

Conclusion: This meta-analysis highlights early gender disparities in RHD, with female predominance preceding established valve lesions. Prevalence remains higher in rural areas, public schools, and low-income families, with global prevalence in endemic regions at…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 215,552 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free