. 2021 May 5;40(5):1107–1119. doi: 10.1002/nau.24677

Table 2A.

Histomorphologic and biomechanical outcomes meta‐analysis

Outcome measure	Hedges g	95% CI (p‐value for subgroups)	I ²	No. of comparisons	No. of articles	No. of animals	Unit
Apoptosis	0.02	−0.44 to 0.48	11.4%	10	4	106	% apoptotic cells
Elastin	0.18	−0.67 to 1.02	71.5%	12	4	117	Concentration, normalized values, % dry weight or % positive cells
M1 macrophages	1.85	0.83 to 2.88^a	76.8%	13	3	106	Histologic scoring or % positive cells
M2 macrophages	2.74	1.83 to 3.65^a	64.4%	13	3	106	Histologic scoring or % positive cells
MMP‐2	2.80	1.82 to 3.78^a	74.9%	16	4	150	Density/relative expression or normalized values
Neovascularization – PP vs. PP hybrid	1.17 1.08 vs. 1.96	0.84 to 1.50^a NS	7.5%	22	5	176	Histologic scoring or density/relative expression
Smooth muscle	0.20	−0.42 to 0.82	63.2%	15	5	147	Histologic scoring or smooth muscle thickness
TNF‐α	0.83	0.11 to 1.56^a	68.5%	13	3	117	Concentration or density/relative expression
Total collagen – PP hybrid vs. biological	0.17 0.61 vs. −0.25	−0.62 to 0.95 NS	67.8%	12	4	117	Histologic scoring or % dry weight
Contractility – TA vs. TV	−0.55 −1.27 vs. 0.05	−0.97 to −0.13^a p < 0.01	34.3%	17	6	156	mN, mN/mm³, or mN/g
Stiffness – Ewe vs. Macaque – TA vs. TV	0.68 1.06 vs. 0.14 0.35 vs. 0.88	0.20 to 1.17^a NS NS	52.0%	20	6	173	N/mm

Note: Only subgroup analysis is shown which meets the requirements for subgroup analysis: ≥3 comparisons from ≥3 articles. See Supplementary file 4 for all subgroups per outcome measure, including CI of the above subgroup analysis.

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; I ², heterogeneity; MMP‐2, matrix metalloproteinase‐2; N, number; NS, nonsignificant; PP, polypropylene; TA, transabdominal; TNF‐α, tumor necrosis factor‐alpha; TV, transvaginal; vs., versus.

^{^a}

Significant difference between animals with vaginal implants and control animals.