Is it possible they may have framed it as 1% to ease interpretability? - This is key component of scientific writing. Using benchmarks etc to communicate a rather nuance topic to the general population. I also feel like framing it as 1% gives more cause than framing it as 0,22% which some people can easily dismissed as not a large enough issue. This can significantly impact funding and scientific interests. Also, what tailored strategies can you think of for a condition with a prevalence of 0.22% that cannot be applied to a 1%? I guess what I’m asking here is how significant is this discrepancy in reporting on a larger scale? Note: I haven’t read the papers so I’m commenting purely based on your writing.