Table 2.

Pooled prevalence of MTBC genotypes in each studied genotype in PTB and EPTB samples

Lineage	Genotype	(n), Pooled prevalence of MDR%	Pooled prevalence of genotype		Heterogeneity		Publication bias
			(n), Prevalence%	(95% CI)%	Q, I2%	P-value	Begg’s p-value	Egger’s p-value
L1	EAI	(16), 1.17%	(799), 12.95%	(7.58–19.47)%	935, 97.75%	< 0.001	0.061	0.192
	MANU	(3), 0.74%	(116), 5.41%	(3.03–8.43)%	105, 89.58%	< 0.001	0.06	0.17
L2	Beijing	(52), 2.52%	(481), 8.06%	(5.96–10.44)%	305, 90.52%	< 0.001	0.14	0.27
L3	CAS	(23), 1.21%	(1761), 19.21%	(14.95–23.86)%	1016, 95.97%	< 0.001	0.11	0.16
L4	NEW1	(7), 0.8%	(568), 21.94%	(16.41–28.05)%	263, 90.89	< 0.001	0.09	0.31
	T	(10), 0.59%	(1006), 12.16%	(9.18–15.50)%	367, 92.65%	< 0.001	0.089	0.216
	Haarlem	(13), 0.67%	(989), 10.38%	(6.62–14.87)%	909, 96.59%	< 0.001	0.054	0.116
	Uganda	0%	(60), 9.04%	(3.06–17.74)%	53, 88.87%	< 0.001	0.24	0.64
	S	0%	(19) 6.24%	(3.83–9.53)%	6, 53.57%	0.091	0.415	0.817
	LAM	(1), 0.31%	(89), 3.59%	(1.85–5.86)%	119, 89.08%	< 0.001	0.052	0.095
	URAL	0%	(27), 3.39%	(2.28–4.82)%	8.49, 5.83%	0.386	0.612	0.768
	EASTMED	0%	(8), 3.12%	(1.43–5.84)%	2, 0%	0.393	0.78	0.81
	X	0%	(46), 2.03%	(0.88–3.64)%	55, 83.76%	< 0.001	0.153	0.319
	H37Rv	0%	(11), 1.78%	(0.94–3.05)%	5, 1.99%	0.403	0.419	0.778
	TUR	0%	(6), 1.64%	(0.68–3.29)%	1.91, 0%	0.59	0.419	0.654
	Cameroon	0%	(7), 1.64%	(0.73–3.15)%	1.61, 0%	0.656	0.69	0.78
L5/6	West African	0%	(4), 0.38%	(0.13–0.87)%	1.9, 0%	0.586	0.513	0.813
	Bovis	0%	(45), 3.29%	(1.31–6.13)%	45, 84.73%	< 0.001	0.112	0.278
	U	(4), 0.53%	(66), 3.55%	(2.13–5.31)%	28, 72.14%	< 0.001	0.09	0.26