Skip to main content
. 2016 Jan 28;89:739–753. doi: 10.1007/s00420-016-1112-z

Table 3.

Summary of subgroup analysis according to study type, quality score, potential for recall bias, and study subjects

SGA LBW Infertility Fetal death Preterm delivery
N a I 2 (%) Model Summary OR (95 % CI) N I 2 (%) Model Summary OR (95 % CI) N I 2 (%) Model Summary OR (95 % CI) N I 2 (%) Model Summary OR (95 % CI) N I 2 (%) Model Summary OR (95 % CI)
Total 7 87.15 RE 1.14 (0.97–1.33) 8 72.36 RE 1.12 (0.98–1.27) 6 42.71 FE 1.15* (1.03–1.28) 9 20.64 FE 1.14* (1.04–1.24) 8 0 FE 1.04* (1.00–1.07)
Study type
 Registry-based 7 87.15 RE 1.14 (0.97–1.33) 5 81.03 RE 1.11 (0.97–1.27) 1 NA 3 53.34 RE 1.12 (0.79–1.59) 5 0 FE 1.04* (1.00–1.07)
 Questionnaire-based 0 NA 3 45.52 FE 1.17 (0.88–1.56) 5 47.21 FE 1.18* (1.05–1.32) 6 6.83 FE 1.16* (1.04–1.29) 3 0 FE 0.91 (0.72–1.16)
Quality score
 ≥7 6 86.73 RE 1.12 (0.92–1.36) 6 78.66 RE 1.10 (0.89–1.35) 3 21.00 FE 1.17 (0.99–1.38) 7 13.06 FE 1.12 (0.99–1.27) 7 0 FE 1.03* (1.00–1.07)
 <7 1 NA 2 NA 3 67.18 RE 1.06 (0.82–1.38) 2 NA 1 NA
Potential for recall bias
 Low 7 87.15 RE 1.14 (0.97–1.33) 6 77.55 RE 1.12 (0.98–1.29) 1 NA 4 50.51 RE 1.20 (0.89–1.64) 6 0 FE 1.04* (1.00–1.07)
 High 0 NA 2 NA 5 47.21 FE 1.18* (1.05–1.32) 5 0 FE 1.14* (1.02–1.28) 2 NA
Study subjectsb
 Hairdresser 5 69.47 RE 1.20* (1.00–1.45) 6 57.41 RE 1.20* (1.03–1.40) 5 20.48 FE 1.19* (1.06–1.32) 7 33.71 FE 1.13* (1.03–1.25) 5 0 FE 1.09* (1.02–1.16)
 Cosmetologist 3 78.30 RE 1.11 (0.91–1.35) 3 41.94 FE 1.00 (0.96–1.05) 1 NA 3 0 FE 1.15 (0.88–1.49) 4 33.88 FE 1.02 (0.98–1.06)

OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, SGA small for gestational age, LBW low birth weight, RE random-effect model, FE fixed-effect model, NA not available

* Statistical significance

aNumber of included studies

bThe study by Halliday-Bell et al. (2009) was evaluated as two separate studies