Table 2.

Main characteristics and evidence quality of prognostic meta-analyses

References	Country	No. of studies	Measurement Parameters	Outcomes	Effect Size	Downgrade Factors					Upgrade Factors	Certainty of the evidence
						Risk of bias	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Imprecision	Publication bias
Baggen,2016	Holland	27	PE RAA TAPSE	endpoint event a endpoint event a endpoint event a	HR, 1.70 HR, 1.71 HR, 1.72	0 0 0	0 -1d -1e	0 0 0	-1f 0 0	0 -1 h -1 h	no no no	moderate low low
Shukla,2018	Canada	10	RVLS TAPSE	all-cause mortality all-cause mortality	HR, 3.67 HR, 1.45	-1c -1c	0 0	0 0	-1 g 0	0 0	large effect j no	moderate moderate
Hulshof,2018	Holland	11	RVLS RVLS	all-cause mortality combined endpoint b	HR, 2.96 HR, 1.22	0 0	0 -1d	0 0	0 0	-1i -1i	large effectj no	high low
Liu,2020	China	12	RAA/RAAI RAA/RAAI	all-cause mortality combined endpoint b	HR, 1.50 HR, 1.53	0 0	0 -1e	0 0	-1f -1f	0 0	no no	moderate low

PE pericardial effusion, RAA right atrial area, RAAI right atrial area index, TAPSE tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion, RVLS right ventricular longitudinal strain, HR hazard ratio, NR not reported

^adefined as death, transplantation or clinical deterioration

^bdefined as death or PH related events

^cquality assessment suggested risk of bias

^dexistence of heterogeneity (50% < I² ≤ 75%)

^ehigh heterogeneity (I² > 75%), but heterogeneity was mainly explained

^fdifferent methods of prognosis

^gRV strain included free wall, septum, and global strain

^hasymmetry on funnel plot; i. publication bias was not assessed; j. HR > 2