Table 1. Summary of meta-analysis results for the prevalence of occult hepatitis B in blood donors.

	Prevalence. % (95%CI)	95% Prediction interval	N Studies	N Participants	¶H (95%CI)	§I2 (95%CI)	P heterogeneity
Occult hepatitis B virus prevalence in HBsAg negative & anti-HBc positive blood donors
Overall	6.6 [5.7–7.5]	[2.2–12.8]	53	6756446	10.9 [10.5–11.5]	99.2 [99.1–99.2]	<0.001
Cross-sectional	6.6 [5.7–7.5]	[2.2–12.8]	53	6756446	10.9 [10.5–11.5]	99.2 [99.1–99.2]	<0.001
Low risk of bias	9.9 [7.7–12.3]	[1.1–25.2]	30	6503856	12.6 [11.9–13.3]	99.4 [99.3–99.4]	<0.001
Occult hepatitis B virus prevalence in HBsAg negative & anti-HBc negative blood donors
Overall	0 [0–0]	[0–0.2]	7	72555	1.4 [1–2.1]	46.7 [0–77.5]	0.081
Cross-sectional	0 [0–0]	[0–0.2]	7	72555	1.4 [1–2.1]	46.7 [0–77.5]	0.081
Low risk of bias	0 [0–0]	[0–0]	4	72107	1 [1–2.6]	0 [0–84.7]	0.731
Occult hepatitis B virus prevalence in HBsAg negative blood donors
Overall	0.3 [0.2–0.4]	[0–1]	27	567324	5.8 [5.2–6.4]	97 [96.3–97.5]	<0.001
Cross-sectional	0.2 [0.1–0.3]	[0–0.9]	26	566816	5.7 [5.1–6.3]	96.9 [96.2–97.5]	<0.001
Low risk of bias	0.4 [0.2–0.5]	[0–1.2]	15	467345	6.7 [5.9–7.5]	97.7 [97.1–98.2]	<0.001

CI: confidence interval; N: Number; 95% CI: 95% Confidence Interval; NA: not applicable.

^¶H is a measure of the extent of heterogeneity, a value of H = 1 indicates homogeneity of effects and a value of H >1indicates a potential heterogeneity of effects.

^§: I2 describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity, a value > 50% indicates presence of heterogeneity