Skip to main content
. 2016 Sep 13;7(41):67463–67475. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.11997

Table 3. Continence-related outcomes comparison.

Outcome of interest No. of studies No. of patients, BNP/control OR(95% CI) P-Value Study heterogeneity Egger test (P-Value)
Chi2 df P-Value I2
Subgroup analyses
BNP vs. noBNP
1. Continence
 0 d 3 279/232 3.24 [1.61, 6.52] 0.0010 1.24 2 0.54 0% 0.074
 1 mo 6 385/387 2.45 [1.32, 4.55] 0.005 17.57 5 0.004 72% 0.288
 3 mo 8 585/528 2.04 [1.39, 3.00] 0.0003 13.60 7 0.06 49% 0.791
 2-4 mo 10 964/837 2.22 [1.42, 3.47] 0.0004 33.24 9 0.0001 73% 0.048
 6 mo 8 582/528 1.72 [1.25, 2.37] 0.0010 4.25 7 0.75 0% 0.493
 12 mo 7 840/675 1.46 [1.06, 2.02] 0.02 5.22 6 0.52 0% 0.783
2. Urine leak 4 511/459 1.07 [0.45, 2.58] 0.88 2.92 1 0.09 66% -
BNP vs. BNR
 Continence ≥12mo 4 183/279 3.30 [1.26, 8.66] 0.02 4.46 3 0.22 33% 0.025
Overall
Continence >12mo 4 519/451 3.99 [1.94, 8.21] 0.0002 5.38 3 0.15 44% 0.218
 BNP vs. noBNP 2 438/369 3.96 [1.72, 9.13] 0.001 3.62 1 0.06 72% -
 BNP vs. BNR 2 81/82 4.09 [0.98, 17.11] 0.05 1.75 1 0.19 43% -
Bladder neck stricture 7 * 758/823 0.49 [0.29, 0.81] 0.006 5.28 5 0.38 5% 0.431
 BNP vs. noBNP 4 634/529 0.42 [0.20, 0.89] 0.02 3.25 2 0.20 38% 0.112
 BNP vs. BNR 4 225/294 0.50 [0.26, 0.94] 0.03 2.69 3 0.44 0% 0.686

CI = confidence interval; OR = odds ratio

*

overlap of data

**

Statistically significant results are shown in bold.