Research
Hyperhidrosis Prevalence Around the World
Reported hyperhidrosis prevalence ranges from about 2.8% to 16.3% depending on the country studied — but that spread mostly reflects how each study defined and measured excessive sweating, not real differences in human biology. This page lists the headline national estimates alongside the population, sample size, and definition behind each, so they can be compared fairly. The figures should not be averaged into a single worldwide number.
Published 2026-07-12 · Last reviewed 2026-07-12 · Educational information, not medical advice.
Key statistics at a glance
2.8–4.8%
US prevalence estimates, from two national surveys twelve years apart
Strutton 2004; Doolittle 2016
16.3%
highest headline figure, among screened German employees (6.1% with frequent/disturbing sweating)
Augustin 2013
12.76%
any primary focal hyperhidrosis in Japan (5.75% axillary, 5.33% palmar)
Fujimoto 2013
5.5%
primary hyperhidrosis in Sweden, with 1.4% rated severe (HDSS 3–4)
Shayesteh 2016
There is no single global prevalence figure
No study has measured hyperhidrosis the same way across the whole world, so there is no reliable single global rate. The most cited synthesis, a 2019 review in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, anchors on the US figure, noting the condition "may affect at least 4.8% of the US population." Everything beyond that comes from individual national surveys that each defined excessive sweating differently.
The practical consequence: a German figure of 16.3% and a US figure of 2.8% are not in conflict. They are answers to different questions, asked of different people, using different tools. The table below keeps each figure attached to its context.
National prevalence estimates, country by country
Each row links to the original study. Figures are self-reported survey estimates using screening questions, not counts of confirmed clinical diagnoses, and they are not directly comparable across studies.
| Study | Year | Country / population | Sample | Prevalence | Method | Key limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strutton et al. | 2004 | USA, general population | 150,000 households screened | 2.8% (~7.8M) | National mailed survey | Broad self-report; no clinical confirmation |
| Doolittle et al. | 2016 | USA, general population | 8,160 respondents | 4.8% (~15.3M) | Online panel survey | Self-report; higher partly due to definition/awareness |
| Shayesteh et al. | 2016 | Sweden, general population | 1,353 | 5.5% primary (1.4% severe) | Population questionnaire + HDSS | Modest sample; self-report |
| Fujimoto et al. | 2013 | Japan, ages 5–64 | 5,807 | 12.76% any focal (5.75% axillary) | Questionnaire, not physician-confirmed | Counts any focal site; broad definition |
| Augustin et al. | 2013 | Germany, employed adults (52 companies) | 14,336 | 16.3% (6.1% frequent/disturbing) | Workplace screening + interview | Employed screening sample; liberal self-report |
| Tu et al. | 2007 | China (Fuzhou), adolescents | 13,000 | 4.59% (palmar only) | Stratified cluster questionnaire | Adolescents only; palmar site only |
| Liu et al. | 2016 | China (Shanghai) / Canada (Vancouver), derm outpatients | 1,010 / 1,018 | 14.5% / 12.3% primary | Cross-sectional clinic questionnaire | Clinic samples, not general population |
Rows are ordered by country, not ranked. Prevalence figures are not interchangeable between studies.
The headline figures side by side
Plotted together, the spread is obvious. Remember that the German and Japanese figures use the broadest self-report definitions, while the US 2.8% and the Chinese 4.59% are the narrowest (a strict national screen and a palmar-only adolescent survey, respectively).
| Group | Value |
|---|---|
| USA (Strutton 2004) | 2.8% |
| China palmar (Tu 2007) | 4.59% |
| USA (Doolittle 2016) | 4.8% |
| Sweden (Shayesteh 2016) | 5.5% |
| Canada (Liu 2016) | 12.3% |
| Japan focal (Fujimoto 2013) | 12.76% |
| China Shanghai (Liu 2016) | 14.5% |
| Germany (Augustin 2013) | 16.3% |
Source: Compiled from the studies in the table above. Chart is an original rendering of the cited data.
Why the estimates differ so much
Four factors explain almost all of the spread between countries:
- Definition. Some studies count any excessive sweating; others count only severe or "disturbing" sweating, or only one site such as the palms or underarms. Germany's 16.3% and Japan's 12.76% count broadly; China's 4.59% counts palmar sweating only.
- Population. A general-population sample, a group of employees, a cohort of adolescents, and dermatology-clinic patients will not produce the same figure. Employed and clinic samples tend to run high.
- Method. Mailed surveys, online panels, workplace screening, and clinic questionnaires reach different people and get different response rates.
- Self-report versus diagnosis. Screening questions capture far more people than formal diagnosis does, because most cases are never clinically diagnosed.
Same overall rate, different body sites
One cross-sectional study directly compared dermatology outpatients in Shanghai and Vancouver and found nearly identical overall primary-hyperhidrosis prevalence — 14.5% versus 12.3%. But the body sites differed: the authors reported that Chinese subjects were roughly 2.5 to 5 times less likely to have axillary (underarm) hyperhidrosis than the largely Caucasian Vancouver group. Overall prevalence can look similar while the pattern of where people sweat differs.
This is a useful reminder that a single national percentage hides a lot of structure — by site, by age, and by severity.
Methodology and limitations
This page compiles published, peer-reviewed prevalence studies and reports what each one measured. Every figure was traced to its original study and confirmed against the source.
Several limitations apply throughout. Almost all figures are self-reported rather than clinically confirmed; definitions of "hyperhidrosis" differ between studies (any sweating, severe sweating, or a single site); several samples are not general-population (employees in Germany, adolescents in China, clinic patients in the Shanghai–Vancouver comparison), which tends to raise the figure; and response rates vary. Because of this, the estimates should be read individually with their context, never averaged into a single worldwide rate. Nothing here is a diagnosis or medical advice.
Frequently asked questions
- How common is hyperhidrosis worldwide?
- There is no single reliable worldwide figure. National estimates range from about 2.8% (a strict US survey) to 16.3% (screened German employees). A 2019 review anchors on "at least 4.8% of the US population." These country figures should be read individually, not averaged.
- Why do country estimates range from under 3% to over 16%?
- Because the studies measure different things. They differ by definition (any excessive sweating vs. severe vs. a single body site), by population (general public vs. employees vs. adolescents vs. clinic patients), and by method. Germany's 16.3% and Japan's 12.76% use broad self-report; the US 2.8% and China's 4.59% (palmar only) are narrower measures.
- Which countries report the highest prevalence?
- Germany reports the highest headline figure at 16.3% among screened employees (Augustin 2013), followed by Japan at 12.76% for any primary focal hyperhidrosis (Fujimoto 2013). Both rely on broad self-report criteria.
- Does hyperhidrosis affect ethnic groups differently?
- Overall prevalence can be similar while the affected sites differ. A Shanghai–Vancouver comparison found overall primary prevalence of 14.5% versus 12.3%, but Chinese subjects were about 2.5–5 times less likely to have underarm hyperhidrosis than the Vancouver group.
- How common is the sweaty-hands (palmar) form specifically?
- It was 4.59% among Chinese adolescents (Tu 2007) and 5.33% for primary palmar hyperhidrosis in Japan (Fujimoto 2013) — reasonably consistent for that body site across East Asian samples.
Sources
Primary peer-reviewed studies and official sources first, then reviews and institutional framing (secondary).
- Strutton DR, Kowalski JW, Glaser DA, Stang PE. US prevalence of hyperhidrosis and impact on individuals with axillary hyperhidrosis: results from a national survey. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004;51(2):241–248. PubMed
- Doolittle J, Walker P, Mills T, Thurston J. Hyperhidrosis: an update on prevalence and severity in the United States. Arch Dermatol Res. 2016;308(10):743–749. Full text
- Shayesteh A, Janlert U, Brulin C, Boman J, Nylander E. Prevalence and characteristics of hyperhidrosis in Sweden: a cross-sectional study in the general population. Dermatology. 2016;232(5):586–591. PubMed
- Fujimoto T, Kawahara K, Yokozeki H. Epidemiological study and considerations of primary focal hyperhidrosis in Japan. J Dermatol. 2013;40(11):886–890. PubMed
- Augustin M, Radtke MA, Herberger K, et al. Prevalence and disease burden of hyperhidrosis in the adult population. Dermatology. 2013;227(1):10–13. PubMed
- Tu YR, Li X, Lin M, et al. Epidemiological survey of primary palmar hyperhidrosis in adolescents in Fuzhou, China. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2007;31(4):737–739. PubMed
- Liu Y, Bahar R, Kalia S, et al. Hyperhidrosis prevalence and severity among dermatology outpatients in Shanghai and Vancouver. PLOS ONE. 2016;11(4):e0153719. Full text
- Nawrocki S, Cha J. The etiology, diagnosis, and management of hyperhidrosis: a comprehensive review (Part 1). J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;81(3):657–666. (secondary) PubMed
How to cite this page
Sweat Explained. Hyperhidrosis Prevalence Around the World. Published 2026-07-12; last reviewed 2026-07-12. Available at: https://sweatexplained.com/research/hyperhidrosis-prevalence-worldwide
Please cite the original studies for the underlying figures. Journalists are welcome to link to this page; the charts are original renderings of the cited data.