Background: Metabolic Syndrome (MS) is a cardiometabolic condition characterized by cardiovascular risk factors, including dysglycemia, dyslipidemia and central obesity. MS is prevalent in Latin America, significantly contributing to the regions cardiovascular burden. However, precise prevalence data remain scarce. This study provides a comprehensive review of MS prevalence among adults in Latin American countries.Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies were conducted following the 2020-JBI recommendations and the PRISMA checklist. Studies published between 2009 and 2024, including cross-sectional, cohort, and surveys, reporting MS prevalence in the general population of Latin American, were selected from MEDLINE, Virtual Health Library and Scopus Citation Index. Exclusions included studies on special populations, minors or pregnant women. Study quality was assessed using STROBE guidelines. Two independent researchers extracted and verified data, resolving disagreements by consensus. Meta-analysis managed a random-effects model with logit transformations, and Restricted Maximum Likelihood for heterogeneity estimation. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed, with publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's test. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42020159881).Findings: From 90 studies, MS prevalence was evaluated using six diagnostic criteria among 147,551 participants (approximately 59,289 females and 36,647 males). Overall prevalence was 40% (95% CI: 32–72). Mexico revealed the highest prevalence (61%), followed by Ecuador (50%). Factors influencing prevalence included female sex, older age, diagnostic criteria, and urban location. IDF 2006 and JIS 2009 were the most accurate criteria. STROBE assessment showed no impact on MS prevalence. High heterogeneity reflected the diversity of Latin American context. No publication bias was detected.Interpretation: MS prevalence has risen, specifically in urbanized areas, males and older adults. Primary care prevention strategies are crucial to reduce its burden. IDF 2006 and JIS 2009 are preferred for their accuracy and concordance.Funding: This study did not receive any funding.Declaration of Interest: We declare no competing interests.