Skip to main content
. 2015 Apr 9;26(2):100–110. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2015.26.2.100

Table 2. Subgroup analyses for comparing survival between conventional and nerve sparing radical surgery for cervical cancer.

Category No. of studies HR 95% CI Heterogeneity Model used
p-value I2
Disease-free survival
 Study design, and quality of study (NOS)
  Prospective and NOS=8 3 1.026 0.673-1.565 0.468 <0.001 Fixed effect
 Surgical approach
  Laparotomy 3 1.038 0.666-1.618 0.403 <0.001 Fixed effect
 Radicality
  Type III or C 2 1.003 0.635-1.585 0.228 31.146 Fixed effect
 Adjustment for potential confounding factors
  Age, adjuvant treatment, extent of lymphadenectomy, FIGO stage, LNM 2 1.453 0.691-3.054 0.598 <0.001 Fixed effect
Overall survival
 Study design, and quality of study (NOS)
  Prospective, and NOS=8 3 1.075 0.433-2.611 0.054 65.805 Random effects
 Surgical approach
  Laparotomy 3 1.124 0.422-2.944 0.044 68.098 Random effects
 Radicality
  Type III or C 3 0.862 0.324-2.293 0.095 57.436 Random effects
 Adjustment for potential confounding factors
  Age, adjuvant treatment, extent of lymphadenectomy, FIGO stage, LNM 2 1.680 0.862-3.274 0.774 <0.001 Fixed effect

CI, confidence interval; FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; HR, hazard ratio; LNM, lymph node metastasis; NOS, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.