Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,100Open textbooks2Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology107Genetics and Genomics95Neuroscience110Cardiovascular Medicine105Immunology90Pharmacology99Molecular Biology100Infectious Diseases102Rare and Inherited Diseases106Clinical Research98Anatomy and Physiology542Drugs and Chemicals546
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›EvidenceLib›Clinical Research›Morbidity
Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Research reading room

Morbidity

Clinical Research · NLM MeSH · updated 2026-10-29 · version 1

Citations verified against PubMedNot yet clinician-reviewed10 referencesApproximately 7 min read

The proportion of patients with a particular disease during a given year per given unit of population.

Table of Contents

1. Definition2. Research landscape3. Reading the evidence4. Open-access studies5. Key reviews6. References7. About this article

Definition and research guide

This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.

Content available: 4 complete abstracts (1,507 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.

Definition

The proportion of patients with a particular disease during a given year per given unit of population.

Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.

Also known as: Morbidities.

Where it fits in the MeSH classification

Broader topics
Vital Statistics
Narrower topics
Basic Reproduction Number; Incidence; Prevalence

Research landscape

PubMed indexes 743,199 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Morbidity” (counts retrieved 2026-10-29). 186,456 of them (25.1%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 284,726 records.

Reviews account for 88,997 records (12.0%) and meta-analyses for 19,901. Randomized controlled trials number 15,635 (2.1%) as a share of all records on the topic.

PubMed records by publication periodthrough 1999: 105,447 records; 2000-2009: 166,570 records; 2010-2019: 284,726 records; 2020 onward: 186,456 records105,447through 1999166,5702000-2009284,7262010-2019186,4562020 onward
Records in PubMed indexed with this heading, by publication period. Real counts from NCBI E-utilities; the final period covers only part of the current year. Volume reflects how much has been published, not how strong the evidence is.
Show the data
PeriodRecords
through 1999105,447
2000-2009166,570
2010-2019284,726
2020 onward186,456
Share of records by publication typeReviews: 12.0 percent; Meta-analyses: 2.7 percent; Randomized controlled trials: 2.1 percentReviews12.0% (88,997)Meta-analyses2.7% (19,901)Randomized controlled trials2.1% (15,635)
Share of all PubMed records on this heading that carry each publication type. Types overlap with other records, so the shares do not sum to 100%.
Publication-type chart data
Publication types among 743,199 PubMed records
TypeRecordsShare
Reviews88,99712.0%
Meta-analyses19,9012.7%
Randomized controlled trials15,6352.1%

Method: PubMed query "Morbidity"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-29.

Reading the evidence in clinical research

Research methods determine how much a result can be trusted. Randomized trials guard against confounding, systematic reviews and meta-analyses combine many studies, and observational designs are valuable but can show only association. Reporting standards, trial registration and pre-specified outcomes reduce bias. When reading about a method, ask what problem it is designed to solve and which problems it does not solve.

Evidence from open-access studies

These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.

Study comparison — selected abstracts, not a systematic review
Study / authorsYearSource label / designEurope PMC citationsLicence / source
Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017
GBD 2017 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators
2018Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
10,173cc by
PMID 30496104 · DOI · PMC6227754
Mortality, morbidity, and risk factors in China and its provinces, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017
Zhou M, Wang H, Zeng X, Yin P, Zhu J, Chen W, et al.
2019Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
2,691cc by
PMID 31248666 · DOI · PMC6891889
Quantifying the impact of physical distance measures on the transmission of COVID-19 in the UK
Jarvis CI, Van Zandvoort K, Gimma A, Prem K, CMMID COVID-19 working group, Klepac P, et al.
2020Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
501cc by
PMID 32375776 · DOI · PMC7202922
Petri nets in epidemiology
Segovia C
2025Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
3cc by
PMID 40956342 · DOI · PMC12441085

Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 [1]

Research article GBD 2017 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators · · 2018 · cited 10,173 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundThe Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2017 (GBD 2017) includes a comprehensive assessment of incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability (YLDs) for 354 causes in 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2017.
Closing excerpt
FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (658 words)

BackgroundThe Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2017 (GBD 2017) includes a comprehensive assessment of incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability (YLDs) for 354 causes in 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2017. Previous GBD studies have shown how the decline of mortality rates from 1990 to 2016 has led to an increase in life expectancy, an ageing global population, and an expansion of the non-fatal burden of disease and injury. These studies have also shown how a substantial portion of the world's population experiences non-fatal health loss with considerable heterogeneity among different causes, locations, ages, and sexes. Ongoing objectives of the GBD study include increasing the level of estimation detail, improving analytical strategies, and increasing the amount of high-quality data.MethodsWe estimated incidence and prevalence for 354 diseases and injuries and 3484 sequelae. We used an updated and extensive body of literature studies, survey data, surveillance data, inpatient admission records, outpatient visit records, and health insurance claims, and additionally used results from cause of death models to inform estimates using a total of 68 781 data sources. Newly available clinical data from India, Iran, Japan, Jordan, Nepal, China, Brazil, Norway, and Italy were incorporated, as well as updated claims data from the USA and new claims data from Taiwan (province of China) and Singapore. We used DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression tool, as the main method of estimation, ensuring consistency between rates of incidence, prevalence, remission, and cause of death for each condition. YLDs were estimated as the product of a prevalence estimate and a disability weight for health states of each mutually exclusive sequela, adjusted for comorbidity. We updated the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary development indicator of income per capita, years of schooling, and total fertility rate. Additionally, we calculated differences between male and female YLDs to identify divergent trends across sexes. GBD 2017 complies with the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting.FindingsGlobally, for females, the causes with the greatest age-standardised prevalence were oral disorders, headache disorders, and haemoglobinopathies and haemolytic anaemias in both 1990 and 2017. For males, the causes with the greatest age-standardised prevalence were oral disorders, headache disorders, and tuberculosis including latent tuberculosis infection in both 1990 and 2017. In terms of YLDs, low back pain, headache disorders, and dietary iron deficiency were the leading Level 3 causes of YLD counts in 1990, whereas low back pain, headache disorders, and depressive disorders were the leading causes in 2017 for both sexes combined. All-cause age-standardised YLD rates decreased by 3·9% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 3·1-4·6) from 1990 to 2017; however, the all-age YLD rate increased by 7·2% (6·0-8·4) while the total sum of global YLDs increased from 562 million (421-723) to 853 million (642-1100). The increases for males and females were similar, with increases in all-age YLD rates of 7·9% (6·6-9·2) for males and 6·5% (5·4-7·7) for females. We found significant differences between males and females in terms of age-standardised prevalence estimates for multiple causes. The causes with the greatest relative differences between sexes in 2017 included substance use disorders (3018 cases [95% UI 2782-3252] per 100 000 in males vs s1400 [1279-1524] per 100 000 in females), transport injuries (3322 [3082-3583] vs 2336 [2154-2535]), and self-harm and interpersonal violence (3265 [2943-3630] vs 5643 [5057-6302]).InterpretationGlobal all-cause age-standardised YLD rates have improved only slightly over a period spanning nearly three decades. However, the magnitude of the non-fatal disease burden has expanded globally, with increasing numbers of people who have a wide spectrum of conditions. A subset of conditions has remained globally pervasive since 1990, whereas other conditions have displayed more dynamic trends, with different ages, sexes, and geographies across the globe experiencing varying burdens and trends of health loss. This study emphasises how global improvements in premature mortality for select conditions have led to older populations with complex and potentially expensive diseases, yet also highlights global achievements in certain domains of disease and injury.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 30496104 · DOI · PMC6227754

Mortality, morbidity, and risk factors in China and its provinces, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 [2]

Research article Zhou M, Wang H, Zeng X, Yin P, Zhu J, Chen W, et al. · · 2019 · cited 2,691 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundPublic health is a priority for the Chinese Government.
Closing excerpt
FundingChina National Key Research and Development Program and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (394 words)

BackgroundPublic health is a priority for the Chinese Government. Evidence-based decision making for health at the province level in China, which is home to a fifth of the global population, is of paramount importance. This analysis uses data from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2017 to help inform decision making and monitor progress on health at the province level.MethodsWe used the methods in GBD 2017 to analyse health patterns in the 34 province-level administrative units in China from 1990 to 2017. We estimated all-cause and cause-specific mortality, years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with disability (YLDs), disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), summary exposure values (SEVs), and attributable risk. We compared the observed results with expected values estimated based on the Socio-demographic Index (SDI).FindingsStroke and ischaemic heart disease were the leading causes of death and DALYs at the national level in China in 2017. Age-standardised DALYs per 100 000 population decreased by 33·1% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 29·8 to 37·4) for stroke and increased by 4·6% (-3·3 to 10·7) for ischaemic heart disease from 1990 to 2017. Age-standardised stroke, ischaemic heart disease, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and liver cancer were the five leading causes of YLLs in 2017. Musculoskeletal disorders, mental health disorders, and sense organ diseases were the three leading causes of YLDs in 2017, and high systolic blood pressure, smoking, high-sodium diet, and ambient particulate matter pollution were among the leading four risk factors contributing to deaths and DALYs. All provinces had higher than expected DALYs per 100 000 population for liver cancer, with the observed to expected ratio ranging from 2·04 to 6·88. The all-cause age-standardised DALYs per 100 000 population were lower than expected in all provinces in 2017, and among the top 20 level 3 causes were lower than expected for ischaemic heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, headache disorder, and low back pain. The largest percentage change at the national level in age-standardised SEVs among the top ten leading risk factors was in high body-mass index (185%, 95% UI 113·1 to 247·7]), followed by ambient particulate matter pollution (88·5%, 66·4 to 116·4).InterpretationChina has made substantial progress in reducing the burden of many diseases and disabilities. Strategies targeting chronic diseases, particularly in the elderly, should be prioritised in the expanding Chinese health-care system.FundingChina National Key Research and Development Program and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 31248666 · DOI · PMC6891889

Quantifying the impact of physical distance measures on the transmission of COVID-19 in the UK [3]

Research article Jarvis CI, Van Zandvoort K, Gimma A, Prem K, CMMID COVID-19 working group, Klepac P, et al. · · 2020 · cited 501 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundTo mitigate and slow the spread of COVID-19, many countries have adopted unprecedented physical distancing policies, including the UK.
Closing excerpt
Tracking behavioural change can give a more rapid assessment of the impact of physical distancing measures than routine epidemiological surveillance.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (324 words)

BackgroundTo mitigate and slow the spread of COVID-19, many countries have adopted unprecedented physical distancing policies, including the UK. We evaluate whether these measures might be sufficient to control the epidemic by estimating their impact on the reproduction number (R0, the average number of secondary cases generated per case).MethodsWe asked a representative sample of UK adults about their contact patterns on the previous day. The questionnaire was conducted online via email recruitment and documents the age and location of contacts and a measure of their intimacy (whether physical contact was made or not). In addition, we asked about adherence to different physical distancing measures. The first surveys were sent on Tuesday, 24 March, 1 day after a "lockdown" was implemented across the UK. We compared measured contact patterns during the "lockdown" to patterns of social contact made during a non-epidemic period. By comparing these, we estimated the change in reproduction number as a consequence of the physical distancing measures imposed. We used a meta-analysis of published estimates to inform our estimates of the reproduction number before interventions were put in place.ResultsWe found a 74% reduction in the average daily number of contacts observed per participant (from 10.8 to 2.8). This would be sufficient to reduce R0 from 2.6 prior to lockdown to 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-0.89) after the lockdown, based on all types of contact and 0.37 (95% CI = 0.22-0.53) for physical (skin to skin) contacts only.ConclusionsThe physical distancing measures adopted by the UK public have substantially reduced contact levels and will likely lead to a substantial impact and a decline in cases in the coming weeks. However, this projected decline in incidence will not occur immediately as there are significant delays between infection, the onset of symptomatic disease, and hospitalisation, as well as further delays to these events being reported. Tracking behavioural change can give a more rapid assessment of the impact of physical distancing measures than routine epidemiological surveillance.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 32375776 · DOI · PMC7202922

Petri nets in epidemiology [4]

Research article Segovia C · · 2025 · cited 3 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
This work provides a geometric version of the next-generation matrix method for obtaining the basic reproduction number of an epidemiological model.
Closing excerpt
Thus, the next-generation matrix results in a matrix of flows between the infection compartments with a dominant eigenvalue given by the basic reproduction number.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (131 words)

This work provides a geometric version of the next-generation matrix method for obtaining the basic reproduction number of an epidemiological model. We exhibit a certain correspondence between any system of ODEs and Petri nets. We observe that any epidemiological model has the basic structures found in the SIR model of Kermack-McKendrick. This means that the basic reproduction number depends only on three substructures inside the Petri net, which are also given by three Petri nets inside, representing the susceptible population, the infection process, and the infected population. The five assumptions of the next-generation matrix method given by van den Driessche-Watmough can be described geometrically using Petri nets. Thus, the next-generation matrix results in a matrix of flows between the infection compartments with a dominant eigenvalue given by the basic reproduction number.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 40956342 · DOI · PMC12441085

Key reviews and meta-analyses

The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.

  • Research article Sedentary time and its association with risk for disease incidence, mortality, and hospitalization in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis [5]
    Biswas A, Oh PI, Faulkner GE, Bajaj RR, Silver MA, Mitchell MS, et al. · Ann Intern Med · 2015 · cited 1,844 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Meta-analysis of prevalence [6]
    Barendregt JJ, Doi SA, Lee YY, Norman RE, Vos T · J Epidemiol Community Health · 2013 · cited 1,668 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Geriatric syndromes: clinical, research, and policy implications of a core geriatric concept [7]
    Inouye SK, Studenski S, Tinetti ME, Kuchel GA · J Am Geriatr Soc · 2007 · cited 1,169 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Indigenous health part 1: determinants and disease patterns [8]
    Gracey M, King M · Lancet · 2009 · cited 789 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Chronic kidney disease [9]
    Romagnani P, Remuzzi G, Glassock R, Levin A, Jager KJ, Tonelli M, et al. · Nat Rev Dis Primers · 2017 · cited 744 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Epidemiology and the web of causation: has anyone seen the spider? [10]
    Krieger N · Soc Sci Med · 1994 · cited 641 times (Europe PMC)

References

  1. GBD 2017 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. . 2018. PMID 30496104 · DOI · PMC6227754
  2. Zhou M, Wang H, Zeng X, Yin P, Zhu J, Chen W, et al.. Mortality, morbidity, and risk factors in China and its provinces, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. . 2019. PMID 31248666 · DOI · PMC6891889
  3. Jarvis CI, Van Zandvoort K, Gimma A, Prem K, CMMID COVID-19 working group, Klepac P, et al.. Quantifying the impact of physical distance measures on the transmission of COVID-19 in the UK. . 2020. PMID 32375776 · DOI · PMC7202922
  4. Segovia C. Petri nets in epidemiology. . 2025. PMID 40956342 · DOI · PMC12441085
  5. Biswas A, Oh PI, Faulkner GE, Bajaj RR, Silver MA, Mitchell MS, et al.. Sedentary time and its association with risk for disease incidence, mortality, and hospitalization in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2015. PMID 25599350 · DOI
  6. Barendregt JJ, Doi SA, Lee YY, Norman RE, Vos T. Meta-analysis of prevalence. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013. PMID 23963506 · DOI
  7. Inouye SK, Studenski S, Tinetti ME, Kuchel GA. Geriatric syndromes: clinical, research, and policy implications of a core geriatric concept. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007. PMID 17493201 · DOI · PMC2409147
  8. Gracey M, King M. Indigenous health part 1: determinants and disease patterns. Lancet. 2009. PMID 19577695 · DOI
  9. Romagnani P, Remuzzi G, Glassock R, Levin A, Jager KJ, Tonelli M, et al.. Chronic kidney disease. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2017. PMID 29168475 · DOI
  10. Krieger N. Epidemiology and the web of causation: has anyone seen the spider?. Soc Sci Med. 1994. PMID 7992123 · DOI

About this article

Sources
NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
Verification
Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
Review state
automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
Version
1, last updated 2026-10-29.

See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.

Evidence strength

EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.

Included with the Researcher plan

Reading every article stays free. This computed view is part of the paid plans.

See plans Sign in

Your notes

Notes and highlights stay in this browser only; they are not sent to EvidenceHelix.

Related research topics

  • Basic Reproduction NumberClinical Research
  • Birth RateClinical Research
  • Cause of DeathClinical Research
  • Child MortalityClinical Research
  • Disability-Adjusted Life YearsClinical Research
  • Fetal MortalityClinical Research

All 98 articles in Clinical Research →

At a glance

743,199
PubMed records on this heading
25%
published since 2020
88,997
review articles
15,635
randomized trials
10
verified references below

Counts come from PubMed on 2026-10-29; they show how much has been written, not how strong the evidence is.

Related topics See all →

  • Basic Reproduction NumberClinical Research
  • Birth RateClinical Research
  • Cause of DeathClinical Research
  • Child MortalityClinical Research
  • Disability-Adjusted Life YearsClinical Research

My notes & annotations (0)

Nothing yet. Select text and press Highlight, or write a note in the Notes tab. Stored in this browser only.

Sources

  • NLM MeSH record ↗
  • PubMed search used ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Legal · Support