Table 2.
Pooled Estimates of Postpartum Diabetes Screening by Race and Ethnicity from Metaproportion Routines
| Overall |
Sensitivity analysis (Studies with total samples size >200 participants) |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Included studies | No. of women with GDM | Pooled proportion point estimate of postpartum screening ES (95% CI) | Included studies | No. of women with GDM | Pooled proportion point estimate of postpartum screening ES (95% CI) | |
| Totala | 27 | 96,439 | 0.42 (0.35–0.48) | 19 | 95,643 | 0.42 (0.35–0.50) |
| White | 22 | 36,807 | 0.35 (0.28–0.42) | 16 | 36,547 | 0.33 (0.25–0.40) |
| Black | 22 | 7,315 | 0.33 (0.24–0.42) | 15 | 7,117 | 0.33 (0.23–0.44) |
| Hispanic | 21 | 18,336 | 0.45 (0.37–0.53) | 15 | 18,148 | 0.44 (0.36–0.52) |
| Asian | 17 | 12,269 | 0.50 (0.41–0.58) | 12 | 12,184 | 0.48 (0.39–0.57) |
| Otherb | 12 | 6,351 | 0.36 (0.27–0.45) | 9 | 6,312 | 0.36 (0.27–0.46) |
Oza-Frank36 was only included in the total. Although screening rates were reported for racial and ethnic groups, exact numbers to calculate screening rate were only reported on the total.
Studies included in the meta-analysis of proportions for the “Other” racial and ethnic group must have specified screening rates for all four racial and ethnic groups (white, black, Hispanic, and Asian), such that the “Other” group would not include information about screening in any of these groups. There were 10 studies that had data for an “Other” group (including a total of 852 women) that did not have data stratified for all white, black, Hispanic, and Asian populations as well and are not included in the meta-analysis here. This discrepancy accounts for the 1% of the population not represented in this table.
CI, confidence interval; ES, effect size.