. 2017 Feb 23;8(19):31435–31448. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.15634

Table 4. Association between increased ZEB family expression and clinicopathological features in digestive cancer patients.

	ZEB1							ZEB2
	pooled OR	95% CI	p	heterogeneity		p_Begg	p_Egger	pooled OR	95% CI	p	heterogeneity		p_Begg	p_Egger
	pooled OR	95% CI	p	I² (%)	p	p_Begg	p_Egger	pooled OR	95% CI	p	I² (%)	p	p_Begg	p_Egger
age (old vs young)¹	0.741	(0.442, 1.243)	0.256	59.1	0.032	1.000	0.735	1.155	(0.854, 1.561)	0.349	44.5	0.125	0.806	0.619
gender (male vs female)	0.902	(0.678, 1.200)	0.479	46.4	0.061	0.466	0.127	1.010	(0.746, 1.369)	0.948	0.0	0.631	1.000	0.715
tumor size (large vs small)²	1.571	(1.162, 2.124)	0.003	0.0	0.937	0.902	0.629	1.318	(0.888, 1.956)	0.171	0.0	0.712	1.000	0.616
differentiation (poor vs moderate+well)	2.428	(1.644, 3.578)	<0.001	22.9	0.268	0.806	0.617	1.068	(0.159, 7.146)	0.946	93.7	<0.001	0.296	0.182
depth of invasion (T3+T4 vs T1+T2 or T4 vs T1+T2+T3)	2.423	(1.311, 4.478)	0.005	50.9	0.07	0.260	0.247	2.187	(1.009, 4.743)	0.047	61.0	0.053	1.000	0.646
lymph node metastasis (positive vs negative)	3.136	(2.278, 4.317)	<0.001	6.8	0.376	0.764	0.932	2.360	(1.701, 3.276)	<0.001	28.4	0.232	0.462	0.021
TNM stage (III+IV vs I+II or IV vs I+II+III)	4.194	(2.449, 7.183)	<0.001	57.2	0.029	0.764	0.508	3.169	(2.079, 4.830)	<0.001	0.0	0.610	1.000	0.094

1: The cut-off value of age was various across studies.

2: Tumor size was measured according to diameter or volume across studies.