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

Supplementary Table 5. Subgroup analyses for comparing postoperative sexual functions between conventional and nerve sparing radical surgery for cervical cancer.

Category No. of studies OR 95% CI Heterogeneity Model used
p-value I2
Decrease of sexual interest
 Study design
  Prospective 2 0.305 0.043-2.170 0.055 72.839 Random effects
  Retrospective 3 0.774 0.467-1.281 0.461 <0.001 Fixed effect
 Quality of study (NOS)
  ≥ 8 4 0.480 0.194-1.185 0.011 73.057 Random effects
 Surgical approach
  Laparotomy 3 0.911 0.532-1.560 0.967 <0.001 Fixed effect
 Radicality
  Type III or C 4 0.786 0.484-1.277 0.659 <0.001 Fixed effect
 Follow-up for evaluating dysfunctions (mo)
  12 4 0.440 0.166-1.166 0.020 69.574 Random effects
 Adjustment for potential confounding factors
  Age, adjuvant treatment, FIGO stage 4 0.480 0.194-1.185 0.011 73.057 Random effects
  Age, adjuvant treatment, extent of lymphadenectomy, FIGO stage 3 0.378 0.112-1.269 0.017 75.327 Random effects
Dyspareunia
 Surgical approach
  Laparotomy 2 0.763 0.408-1.426 0.449 <0.001 Fixed effect
 Radicality
  Type III or C 2 0.711 0.389-1.298 0.530 <0.001 Fixed effect
 Follow-up for evaluating dysfunctions (mo)
  12 2 0.504 0.223-1.138 0.754 <0.001 Fixed effect
 Adjustment for potential confounding factors
  Age, adjuvant treatment, extent of lymphadenectomy, FIGO stage 3 0.759 0.350-1.648 0.467 75.327 Fixed effect

CI, confidence interval; FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; NOS, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; OR, odds ratio.