Table 3: The result of meta-analysis regarding the effect of BBR versus MET.

IndicesSMD95CIPTrials involved

BMI◆1♣1◆2♣2◆3♣3-0.158-0.446~1.1300.281No. 1, No. 2, No. 3

FSH0.184-0.305~0.6730.461No. 1, No. 2, No. 3

LH◆1◆3-0.130-0.688~0.4290.649No. 1, No. 2, No. 3

T◆1◆2♣2◆3-0.516-1.088~0.0550.077No. 1, No. 2, No. 3

HOMA-IR◆1♣1◆2♣2◆3-0.188-0.476~0.1000.201No. 1, No. 2, No. 3

TC◆1♣1◆2♣2◆3♣3-1.233-2.912~0.4460.150No. 1, No. 2, No. 3

TG◆1♣1◆3♣30.045-0.243~0.3320.761No. 1, No. 2, No. 3

LDL-C◆1♣1◆2♣2◆3♣3-0.701-1.630~0.2290.140No. 1, No. 2, No. 3

HDL-C0.148-0.984~1.2800.798No. 1, No. 2, No. 3

Notes:
significant statistical difference (P<0.05) between final value and baseline in BBR group was reported by trial No. x.
significant statistical difference (P<0.05) between final value and baseline in MET group was reported by trial No. x.
:fixed effect model;:random effect model.
: P>0.05.
: BBR group showed a greater change than MET before and after treatment.