Skip to main content

Table 2 Meta-analysis of the association between prevalence of UAI with MSM recruited online vs. offline

From: Prevalence of unprotected anal intercourse in men who have sex with men recruited online versus offline: a meta-analysis

Subgroups

Sample size

No. of studies

Test of association#

Test of heterogeneity

Egger’s test for publication bias

Online group

Offline group

OR (95% CI)

Z

Pvalue

Q

Pvalue

I 2(%)

t

Pvalue

Overall effects

17,580

10,853

14

1.35 (1.13, 1.62)

3.28

0.001

93.06

<0.001

86.0

0.16

0.880

European subsample

10,718

5,141

6

1.38 (1.17, 1.63)

3.84

<0.001

14.88

0.011

66.4

0.82

0.457

American subsample

4,181

4,866

5

1.21 (0.81, 1.82)

0.93

0.354

49.60

<0.001

91.9

−0.57

0.606

Asian subsample

2,681

846

3

1.63 (0.74, 3.62)

1.20

0.229

28.20

<0.001

92.9

1.37

0.402

Sample size > 500

16,984

10,205

11

1.32 (1.09, 1.61)

2.79

0.005

85.48

<0.001

88.3

-0.09

0.930

Sample size ≤ 500

596

648

3

1.51(0.89, 2.56)

1.52

0.128

7.40

0.025

73.0

2.62

0.232

UAI in the last 6 or more months

9,564

6,557

6

1.28 (0.94, 1.76)

1.56

0.12

62.11

<0.001

92.0

-0.79

0.850

UAI in the last 3 or less months

8,016

4,296

8

1.40 (1.13, 1.74)

3.03

0.002

30.44

<0.001

77.0

1.11

0.645

  1. OR, odds ratios, CI, confidence interval, UAI, unprotected anal intercourse. #The overall pooled estimate of risk OR obtained using DerSimonian and Laid method in the random effect model.