Skip to main content
. 2023 Jan 20;12(3):856. doi: 10.3390/jcm12030856

Table 2.

Results from subgroups analyses (meta-analysis of proportions) and risk factors meta-analysis.

Part 1. Subgroup Analyses (Meta-Analysis of Proportions)
Subgroups Pooled Prevalence (95% CI) Heterogeneity (I2)
Study design
Case-Control (14 studies) 41% (27–57) 96.50%
Cross-Sectional (13 studies) 48% (33–63) 98.14%
Case-Series (6 studies) 43% (20–60) 94.54%
Cohort (3 studies) 31% (8–60) Not estimable
Region
Asia (15 studies) 42% (28–56) 98.15%
Europe (8 studies) 48% (38–58) 89.36%
Latin America (6 studies) 55% (35–75) 93.41%
USA and Canada (5 studies) 30% (11–52) 95.81%
Africa (2 studies) 45% (36–54) Not estimable
NAFLD assessment method
Ultrasound (26 studies) 46% (38–55) 95.61%
Transient elastography ( 4studies) 46% (15–79) 98.23%
CT-Scan (2 studies) 3% (0–11) Not estimable
Non-invasive blood biomarkers/Panels (2 studies) 55% (52–59) Not estimable
MRI (1 study) 46% (31–53) Not estimable
PCOS diagnostic criteria
Rotterdam (31 studies) 45% (36–54) 97.52%
NIH (4 studies) 35% (17–57) 89.09%
AE and PCOS society (1 study) 24% (16–33) Not estimable
Part 2. Risk Factors Meta-analysis
Factor Odds Ratio (95% CI) Heterogeneity, I2
BMI (8 studies) 1.35 (1.28–1.430) 70.00%
Waist circumference (5 studies) 1.016 (1.006–1.027) 71.60%
ALT (4 studies) 1.007 (1.001–1.014) 81.40%
HOMA -IR (4 studies) 1.21 (1.09–1.24) 36.50%
HDL (2 studies) 0.99 (0.96–1.03) 72.10%
Free Androgen Index (2 studies) 1.06 (1.03–1.1) 82.30%
Hyperandrogenism (2 studies) 10.3 (4.2–25.2) 58.10%
Triglycerides (2 studies) 1.002 (1.001–1.004) 63.60%