Table 4.

Sensitivity Analysis of Random‐Effects Meta‐Analysis With Alternative Methods When Pooled Estimates Were From Combination of 2 Studies

Variable	Random‐Effects Method	Pooled OR	95% CI	P Value
EAT measurement method
EAT thickness27, 28	DL	3.09	0.56–17.01	0.20
	HKSJ	3.09	0–19	0.49
Covariate modeling method
EAT continuous21, 24	DL	1.18	0.77–1.81	0.44
	HKSJ	1.18	0.08–18.5	0.58
EAT per 10 mL25, 26	DL	1.18	1.12–1.24	<0.01
	HKSJ	1.18	0.96–1.45	0.06a
HRP subtype
LAP23, 24	DL	2.79	1.71–4.53	<0.01
	HKSJ	2.79	0.59–13.2	0.08a
PR23, 24	DL	1.93	1.25–2.99	0.003
	HKSJ	1.93	0.77–4.84	0.07a
Both LAP and PR23, 24	DL	2.58	1.55–4.28	<0.01
	HKSJ	2.58	2.34–2.83	0.005

References indicate studies that were pooled. ORs are presented using DL and HKSJ methods. CI indicates confidence interval; DL, DerSimonian and Laird; EAT, epicardial adipose tissue; HKSJ, Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman; HRP, high‐risk plaque; LAP, low attenuation plaque; OR, odds ratio; PR, positive remodeling.

^aSignifies when there was a change in P value resulting in statistical nonsignificance (P>0.05) after applying the HKSJ method.