Skip to main content
. 2019 Mar 21;19:256. doi: 10.1186/s12885-019-5463-1

Table 2.

Comparison between Quality Effect Model and the Random Effect Model results

Quality effect model Random effect model
No. of studies (patients) Prevalence (CI 95%) I2% No. of studies (patients) Prevalence (CI 95%) I2%
All eligible studies 14 (917) 20% (7–36%) 94.6% 14 (917) 63% (17–44%) 94.6%
Risk of Bias
Low ROB 6 (604) 11% (1–27%) 94.7% 6 (604) 66% (4–31%) 94.7%
Moderate ROB 8 (313) 40% (21–60%) 87.1% 2 (313) 63% (26–59%) 87.1%
Studies with good external validity 3 (374) 5% (0–14%) 85.5% 3 (374) 49% (1–16%) 85.5%
Gene mutations
Both BRCA1 and BRCA2 7 (477) 34% (18–52%) 93.2% 7 (477) 78% (22–56%) 93.2%
BRCA1 11 (684) 19% (7–36%) 92.8% 11 (684) 59% (15–42%) 92.8%
BRCA2 6 (488) 27% (16–40%) 87.4% 6 (488) 75% (18–42%) 87.4%
Target population
HBOC 3 (348) 7% (0–20%) 91.8% 3 (348) 55% (0–25%) 91.8%
HBC 11 (569) 32% (18–47%) 90.8% 10 (550) 65% (23–50%) 90.8%
HOC 1 (192) 2% (0–5%) 0 1 (192) 33% (0–5%) 0
Geographic Location
Levant 4 (240) 28% (11–49%) 87.9% 4 (240) 63% (13–49%) 87.9%
GCC 2 (142) 22% (0–58%) 93.9% 2 (142) 24% (0–56%) 93.9%
North Africa 8 (535) 16% (0–43%) 96.2% 8 (535) 64% (11–54%) 96.2%
Sample size
< 100 12 (603) 29% (16–44%) 89.9% 12 (603) 62% (21–48%) 89.9%
≥100 2 (314) 5% (0–16%) 91.4% 2 (314) 52% (0–17%) 91.4%
Year of recruitment
≤2011 10 (467) 25% (8–47%) 93.1% 10 (467) 60% (17–52%) 93.1%
2012–2018 5 (572) 13% (1–31%) 95.6% 5 (572) 71% (5–37%) 95.6%
Type of mutation
Deleterious 8 (532) 26% (11–44%) 93.6% 8 (532) 71% (17–49%) 93.6%
Deleterious and VUS 2 (266) 10% (0–100%) 98.8% 2 (266) 73% (0–85%) 98.8%
Deleterious, VUS, and Polymorphisims 4 (119) 20% (4–43%) 72.4% 4 (119) 46% (7–57%) 85.0%