Skip to main content

Table 4 Results of heterogeneity and publication bias estimation and subgroup meta-analysis for prevalence of gestational diabetes based on various GDM screening threshold group among pregnant women in different geographic regions

From: The impact of diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes on its prevalence: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Regions GDM diagnostic threshold subgroup Number of studies included Begg’s test
P-value
I2% Pooled measure of GDM (95% CI)
A 1 1 0.058 (0.039–0.076)
2
3 1 0.076 (0.072–0.080)
4
5 9 0.602 99 0.054 (0.054–0.054)
6 6 0.851 98 0.029 (0.028–0.029)
7 1 0.017 (0.016–0.019)
Overall 18 0.692 99 0.045 (0.044–0.045)
B 1 6 0.850 99 0.152 (0.147–0.157)
2
3 5 0.625 99 0.094 (0.090–0.097)
4
5
6
7
Overall 11 0.258 99 0.114 (0.111–0.117)
C 1
2 7 0.625 99 0.036 (0.036–0.037)
3
4
5
6
7
Overall 7 0.625 99 0.036 (0.036–0.037)
D 1 4 0.090 99 0.078 (0.076–0.081)
2 1 0.045 (0.044–0.046)
3  
4  
5 2 0.317 99 0.053 (0.050–0.056)
6
7 2 0.317 91 0.072 (0.070–0.075)
Overall 9 0.051 99 0.055 (0.054–0.056)
E 1 7 0.293 99 0.108 (0.107–0.108)
2
3 2 0.317 98 0.194 (0.175–0.213)
4 2 0.317 0 0.022 (0.022–0.023)
5
6
7 1 0.012 (0.009–0.015)
Overall 12 0.520 100 0.060 (0.059–0.060)
  1. A: USA and Canada; B: South Asia including India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka; C: Australia; D: East Asia including China and Japan; E: north Europe including Finland, Ireland, Sweden, Norway and Germany