Skip to main content
. 2019 Mar 14;69(5):457–461. doi: 10.1007/s13224-019-01209-3

Table 2.

Comparison of cytogenetic analysis of present study with the previous findings

References Total cases % Abnormal chromosome Normal (%) Numerical anomalies (%) Structural anomalies (%) Male karyotype (%)
Rajangam and Nanjappa [5] 620 26.1 73.87 11.5 5.6 9.0
Cortes-Gutierrez et al. [15] 187 41.7 58.3 26.7 4.3 10.7
Kalavathi et al. [6] 852 25.8 74.2 11.7 7.04 7.04
Vijayalakshmi et al. [7] 140 27.8 71.2 14.3 7.1 6.4
Yu et al. [13] 340 47.0 53.00 45.2 1.8
Faeza [12] 223 20.6 79.37 14.7 4.9 0.9
Samarakoon et al. [3] 338 34.0 66.0 26.0 0.9 6.5
Mohajertehran et al. [11] 180 24.5 75.5 16.7 3.4 4.4
Geckinli et al. [2] 94 37.00 63.00 12.7 11.7 12.7
Stoyanova et al. [10] 140 32.6 61.4 20.7 7.1 6.4
Present study 3776 31.2 68.8 9.7 10.9 10.6