Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Sep 19.
Published in final edited form as: Dig Dis Sci. 2010 Aug 6;55(10):2756–2766. doi: 10.1007/s10620-010-1361-8

Table 3.

Meta-regression analysis to determine sources of heterogeneity for all 11 studies and subgroup of all prospective studies

Covariate coefficient p-value RDOR 95% CI
Meta-analysis
Sex (ratio of male vs. female) −1.23 0.81 0.29 (0.0, >1000)
Sample size 0.09 0.31 1.09 (0.89, 1.33)
Design (prospective vs. retrospective) 0.24 0.94 1.27 (0.0, >1000)
Center (multi-center vs. single center) −8.72 0.26 0 (0.0, >1000)
Country (America vs. non-America) −1.73 0.75 0.18 (0.0, >1000)
Needle size* −0.95 0.49 0.39 (0.02, 8.48)
Subgroup (Prospective Studies) Analysis
Sex (ratio of male vs. female) 22.3 0.2 >1000 (0,>1000)
Sample size −0.06 0.18 0.94 (0.75, 1.17)
Center (multi-center vs. single center) −3.91 0.17 0.02 (0,>1000)
Country (America vs. non-America) −5.61 0.48 0 (0,>1000)
Needle size 1.65 0.55 5.19 (0, >1000)
*

based on uni-variate meta-regression and reduced data (centers = 10)