Background & AimsNarrative reviews of paediatric NAFLD quote prevalences in the general population that range from 9% to 37%; however, no systematic review of the prevalence of NAFLD in children/adolescents has been conducted. We aimed to estimate prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in young people and to determine whether this varies by BMI category, gender, age, diagnostic method, geographical region and study sample size.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies reporting a prevalence of NAFLD based on any diagnostic method in participants 1–19 years old, regardless of whether assessing NAFLD prevalence was the main aim of the study.ResultsThe pooled mean prevalence of NAFLD in children from general population studies was 7.6% (95%CI: 5.5% to 10.3%) and 34.2% (95% CI: 27.8% to 41.2%) in studies based on child obesity clinics. In both populations there was marked heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 98%). There was evidence that prevalence was generally higher in males compared with females and increased incrementally with greater BMI. There was evidence for differences between regions in clinical population studies, with estimated prevalence being highest in Asia. There was no evidence that prevalence changed over time. Prevalence estimates in studies of children/adolescents attending obesity clinics and in obese children/adolescents from the general population were substantially lower when elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) was used to assess NAFLD compared with biopsies, ultrasound scan (USS) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).ConclusionsOur review suggests the prevalence of NAFLD in young people is high, particularly in those who are obese and in males.

Much has been written about the measurement of socio-economic position (SEP) in high-income countries (HIC). Less has been written for an epidemiology, health systems and public health audience about the measurement of SEP in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). The social stratification processes in many LMIC—and therefore the appropriate measurement tools—differ considerably from those in HIC. Many measures of SEP have been utilized in epidemiological studies; the aspects of SEP captured by these measures and the pathways through which they may affect health are likely to be slightly different but overlapping. No single measure of SEP will be ideal for all studies and contexts; the strengths and limitations of a given indicator are likely to vary according to the specific research question. Understanding the general properties of different indicators, however, is essential for all those involved in the design or interpretation of epidemiological studies. In this article, we describe the measures of SEP used in LMIC. We concentrate on measures of individual or household-level SEP rather than area-based or ecological measures such as gross domestic product. We describe each indicator in terms of its theoretical basis, interpretation, measurement, strengths and limitations. We also provide brief comparisons between LMIC and HIC for each measure.