Table 2.
Prevalence of NMO in studies with a random effect model.
| Study | Prevalence | [95% Conf. interval] | % weight | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||
| Etemadifar et al. [9] | 1.95 | 1.62 | 2.321 | 13.13 |
| Pandit and Kundapur [13] | 2.62 | 1.533 | 4.113 | 7.66 |
| Jacob et al. [10] | 1.14 | 0.675 | 1.846 | 12.01 |
| Houzen et al. [14] | 0.85 | 0.294 | 2.225 | 9.99 |
| Cossburn et al. [8] | 1.96 | 1.208 | 3.032 | 9.98 |
| Asgari et al. [7] | 4.41 | 3.456 | 5.413 | 9.53 |
| Cabrera-Gómez et al. [12] | 0.52 | 0.404 | 0.665 | 13.77 |
| Cabre et al. [11] | 4.2 | 3.336 | 5.116 | 10.09 |
| Rivera et al. [15] | 0.18 | 0.133 | 0.257 | 13.85 |
| Pooled prevalence | 1.82 | 1.265 | 2.365 | 100 |
Heterogeneity chi-squared = 277.51 (d.f. = 8); p < 0.001.
I-squared (variation in ES attributable to heterogeneity) = 97.1%.
Estimate of between-study variance tau-squared = 0.057.
Test of ES = 0 : z = 6.46; p < 0.001.