SynthesisBMC public health2025
Prevalence of Tinea pedis in military personnel: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence of Tinea pedis in military personnel: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTinea pedis, commonly known as athlete's foot, is a fungal infection caused by dermatophytes, affecting the skin of the feet. It is prevalent in various populations, but military personnel are particularly vulnerable due to their unique environmental and behavioral factors. These include living in close quarters, exposure to humid conditions, and wearing tight, non-breathable footwear for prolonged periods. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to estimate the global prevalence of tinea pedis among military personnel and explore factors contributing to its high occurrence in this population.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in multiple databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, for studies published in English up to 21 March 2025. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the included studies, evaluating aspects such as the selection of participants, comparability, and the assessment of exposure. The prevalence rates were pooled using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity among studies was evaluated. Studies employing various diagnostic methods, including microscopy and fungal culture, were analyzed to identify variations in prevalence estimates. A subgroup analysis was performed based on geographic regions to explore the influence of environmental factors on prevalence.
resultsA total of 25 studies, involving military personnel from different regions, were included in the analysis. The pooled prevalence of tinea pedis among military personnel was estimated at 17% (95% CI: 12-23%). Subgroup analysis revealed regional variations, with the highest prevalence observed in the Americas and Australia, where hot and humid climates are prevalent. The lowest prevalence was observed in European studies, which may be attributed to milder climates. Studies using both microscopy and fungal culture reported higher prevalence rates (20%) compared to those relying solely on microscopy (9%).
conclusionTinea pedis remains a significant health concern among military personnel, with a global prevalence of 17%. Military environments, characterized by high physical activity, shared living conditions, and poor foot hygiene practices, exacerbate the risk of fungal infections. Preventive strategies, including improved foot hygiene, better footwear design, and enhanced access to antifungal treatments, are essential to reduce the prevalence of tinea pedis in military settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.