Table 1.
shows the prevalence of T2DM among participants with a positive family history of T2DM.
Study | Sample size | PFH population | NFH population | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Prevalence (%) | 95% CI | Prevalence (%) | 95% CI | ||
Bantie et al. [38] | 607 | 19.2 | 11.2-29.7 | 8.9 | 6.6-11.6 |
Zenebe et al. [39] | 264 | 35.1 | 20.2-52.5 | 15.9 | 11.4-21.3 |
Bello-Ovosi et al. [40] | 172 | 35.5 | 19.2-54.6 | 22.0 | 15.5-29.7 |
Wondemagegn et al. [41] | 714 | 23.1 | 17.0-30.1 | 8.1 | 5.9-10.7 |
Tesfaye et al. [42] | 851 | 19.6 | 10.2-32.4 | 4.2 | 2.9-5.8 |
Vuvor et al. [43] | 597 | 14.5 | 7.2-25.0 | 2.5 | 1.3-4.2 |
Millogo et al. [44] | 4415 | 5.4 | 2.7-9.4 | 5.5 | 4.8-6.2 |
Abebe et al. [45] | 2136 | 17.9 | 10.2-28.3 | 3.1 | 2.4-3.9 |
Mayega et al. [46] | 1497 | 20.9 | 15.2-27.5 | 15.1 | 13.2-17.2 |
Nyenwe et al. [47] | 492 | 26.3 | 13.4-43.1 | 5.3 | 3.4-7.8 |
Frank et al. [48] | 1221 | 65.0 | 60.54-69.19 | 30.7 | 27.37-34.18 |
Danquah et al. [49] | 1466 | 66.8 | 62.86-70.65 | 32.2 | 29.16-35.44 |
Total (random) | 14,432 | 28.2 | 14.52-44.27 | 11.2 | 6.39-17.06 |
I 2 (inconsistency) = 98.11%, p < 0.0001 |
PFH: positive family history; NFH: negative family history.