Language bias between publications identified in Chinese and
English bibliographic databases
Table 5 summarizes the differences in pooled HSV-2
seroprevalence between publications identified in Chinese and English
bibliographic databases. More publications were collected in Chinese
bibliographic databases (371 identified in CNKI and Wanfang vs .
58 identified in PubMed and Embase). HSV-2 seroprevalence in Chinese
publications ranged from 0.0% to 85.3%, with a median of 11.3%, and
in English publications ranged from 0.0% to 88.0%, with a median of
15.6%. Pooled HSV-2 seroprevalence was higher among studies identified
in English than in Chinese (20.5% vs . 13.6%).
For intermediate-risk populations and drug users, we observed a higher
synthesized seroprevalence in publications published in Chinese than in
English bibliographic databases (22.1% vs . 9.6%, 63.1%vs . 35.5%, respectively). The results of the meta-regression
analysis also supported this observation (RR=0.84, 95% CI: 0.76-0.93,
RR=1.11, 95% CI: 1.04-1.20, respectively). Within FSWs and MSM/MSWs,
HSV-2 seroprevalence was significantly higher in publications published
in English compared to those published in Chinese (RR=1.21, 95% CI:
1.10-1.33, RR=1.11, 95% CI: 1.04-1.20, respectively). However, within
general populations, STI clinic attendees and symptomatic populations,
and HIV-positive individuals and individuals in HIV-discordant couples,
there was no significant difference in HSV-2 seroprevalence between
publications identified from Chinese and English bibliographic
databases.