Skip to main content
. 2016 Sep 20;7(45):72898–72907. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.12131

Table 4. Results of the meta-analysis.

Stratifications No. of studies Pooled Estimates Model Heterogeneity
HR (95% CI) P value I2(%) P value
OS 24 1.91 (1.71–2.14) 0.000 R 60.5 0.000
No. of nodes No. of nodes≥12 13 1.97 (1.71–2.26) 0.000 F 35.2 0.101
No. of nodes<12 8 1.74 (1.40–2.17) 0.000 R 62 0.015
Location Colon 9 2.11 (1.95–2.28) 0.000 F 35.1 0.137
rectum 5 2.30 (1.79–2.96) 0.000 F 19.9 0.288
Treatment R0 surgery +AT 15 1.96 (1.73–2.22) 0.000 F 8.8 0.355
R0 surgery 9 1.83 (1.52–2.20) 0.000 R 81.3 0.000
Stage Stage III 15 1.91 (1.71–2.14) 0.000 R 50.7 0.013
DFS 19 2.75 (2.14–3.53) 0.000 R 71.7 0.000
No. of nodes No. of nodes≥12 13 2.87 (2.18–3.77) 0.000 F 48.8 0.062
No. of nodes < 12 4 2.69 (1.32–5.50) 0.000 R 81.5 0.001
Location Colon 9 3.49 (2.47–4.93) 0.000 R 48.9 0.048
Treatment R0 surgery + AT 14 3.06 (2.32–4.04) 0.000 R 63.2 0.001
R0 surgery 5 1.91 (1.27–2.86) 0.002 R 59 0.045
Stage Stage III 16 2.73 (2.06–3.61) 0.000 R 74.6 0.000

“OS”: overall survival; “DFS”: disease free survival; “AT”: adjuvant treatment; “R”: random effects model; “F”: fixed effect model; “No. of nodes”: total number of lymph nodes harvested.