. 2018 Mar;10(3):1522–1531. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.02.58

Table 3. Relationship between PLR and the clinicopathologic features.

Variable	No. of studies	No. of patients	Effect of model	OR (95% CI)	P value	Heterogeneity		Egger’s P value
Variable	No. of studies	No. of patients	Effect of model	OR (95% CI)	P value	I² (%)	P_h	Egger’s P value
Tumor invasion (T3/4 vs. T1/2)	6	1,848	Fixed	1.543 (1.269, 1.876)	0.000	0.0	0.629	0.022
Tumor invasion (T3/4 vs. T1/2)	6	1,848	Random	1.543 (1.269, 1.876)	0.000	0.0	0.629	0.022
Lymph node metastasis (yes vs. no)	7	2,165	Fixed	1.427 (1.195, 1.705)	0.000	17.9	0.294	0.341
Lymph node metastasis (yes vs. no)	7	2,165	Random	1.461 (1.175, 1.816)	0.001	17.9	0.294	0.341
Differentiation (poor vs. well/moderate)	6	2,128	Fixed	1.196 (0.978, 1.462)	0.081	0.0	0.477	0.677
Differentiation (poor vs. well/moderate)	6	2,128	Random	1.196 (0.978, 1.462)	0.081	0.0	0.477	0.677
Vascular invasion(yes vs. no)	3	567	Fixed	1.104 (0.709, 1.717)	0.663	0.0	0.961	0.749
Vascular invasion(yes vs. no)	3	567	Random	1.104 (0.709, 1.717)	0.663	0.0	0.961	0.749
TNM stage(stage III/IV vs. I/II))	7	2,612	Fixed	1.459 (1.235, 1.724)	0.000	29.6	0.202	0.345
TNM stage(stage III/IV vs. I/II))	7	2,612	Random	1.504 (1.198, 1.889)		29.6	0.202	0.345
Tumor length (>3 vs. ≤3 cm)	4	1,061	Fixed	1.810 (1.331, 2.461)	0.000	12.3	0.331	0.607
Tumor length (>3 vs. ≤3 cm)	4	1,061	Random	1.774 (1.255, 2.507)	0.001	12.3	0.331	0.607

P_h, P value for heterogeneity; No., number; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; TNM, tumor node metastasis; T, depth of tumor invasion.