Brief Article
Copyright ©2012 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. Apr 14, 2012; 18(14): 1642-1651
Published online Apr 14, 2012. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i14.1642
Table 1 Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis reporting
Section/topicNo.Checklist itemReported on page
Title1Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or bothTitle: Meta-analysis
Structured summary2Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration numberAbstract
Rationale3Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already knownIntroduction
Objectives4Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes and study designIntroduction
Protocol and registration5Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration numberNA
Eligibility criteria6Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationaleMethods: Search strategy and eligibility of relevant studies
Information sources7Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searchedMethods: Search strategy and eligibility of relevant studies
Search8Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeatedSearch strategy
Study selection9State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis)Methods: Eligibility of relevant studies; PRISMA flowchart provided
Data collection process10Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigatorsMethods: Data extraction and outcome measures
Data items11List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made
Risk of bias in individual studies12Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis
Summary measures13State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means)Methods: Statistical analysis
Synthesis of results14Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis
Table 2 Characteristics of the included studies
StudyCountryType of studyAge, yr (mean ± SD)Confirmation of HCVConfirmation of T2D
Akbar et al[40]Saudi ArabiaCC94% had > 402Anti-HCVFBS
Antonelli et al[41]ItalyCC65 ± 10Anti-HCV, HCV RNAFPG
Arao et al[42]JapanCCAnti-HCV, HCV RNARandom, FBG
Boschi-Pinto et al[43]JapanCohort65% had > 542Anti-HCVNil
Butt et al[44]United StatesCohort50.82ICD-9
Caronia et al[45]ItalyCC57.5 ± 8Anti-HCVFPG
Chehadeh et al[8]KuwaitCohort51 (23-73)3HCV RNAFPG
Chen et al[46]TaiwanCSAnti-HCV
Gulcan et al[47]TurkeyCC56.89 ± 11.9Anti-HCV, HCV RNAGuideline5
Howard et al[48]United StatesCS51 (37-75)3Anti-HCV, HCV RNAPatient reported, FPG
Huang et al[49]TaiwanCC52.7 ± 0.73Anti-HCV, HCV RNAFPG
Imazeki et al[50]JapanCC45 ± 16.5Anti-HCV, HCV RNAFBS
Jadoon et al[51]NigeriaCohort48.19 ± 10.32Anti-HCVClinic diagnosed
Kaabia et al[52]TunisiaCS55.62Anti-HCV, HCV RNAPatient reported
Knobler et al[53]IsraelCC54 ± 14HCV RNAFPG
Lecube et al[54]SpainCohort52.9 ± 14.1Anti-HCV, HCV RNAFPG
Li-Ng et al[55]United StatesCohort30-794HbsAg1ICD-9
Mason et al[5]United StatesCS72% had > 37Anti-HCVFPG, Random
Marzouk et al[56]EgyptCohort > 252Anti-HCV, HCV RNAFBS
Mehta et al[57]United StatesCS > 202Anti-HCVFPG
Nwokediuko et al[58]NigeriaCS55.8 ± 11.84Anti-HCVFPG
Okan et al[59]TurkeyCS51.92Anti-HCV, HCV RNANil
Olokoba et al[60]NigeriaCS51.5 ± 12Anti-HCVFBS
Papatheodoridis et al[7]GreeceCohort48.1 ± 15.3Anti-HCV, HCV RNAFPG
Qureshi et al[61]PakistanCS42 ± 13Anti-HCVRandom
Rouabhia et al[62]PakistanCS55 ± 9Anti-HCV, HCV RNAFPG
Ryu et al[63]KoreaCohort44 ± 14Anti-HCVFPG
Sangiorgio et al[64]ItalyCSAnti-HCV
Simó et al[65]SpainCC46.4 ± 21.2Anti-HCVWHO
Wang et al[66]TaiwanCohort50.9 ± 14.2Anti-HCVFPG
Wang et al[67]ChinaCC50.9 ± 14.2HCV RNAFBS
Table 3 Stratified analysis of type 2 diabetes mellitus in hepatitis C virus-infected participants
DescriptionCasesOR95% CI
Age (k = 3; n = 599)455 vs 1447.395.82-9.38
≥ 40 yr
< 40 yr
BMI (k = 3; n = 190)65 vs 1900.870.08-9.19
≥ 27
< 27
Gender (k = 8; n = 757)401 vs 3561.261.03-1.54
Family history of diabetes (k = 3; n = 580)420 vs 1644.640.57-38.04