Table 4.
Studies in Meta-Analysis According to covariates and Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale criteria
| Covariates | Loneliness | HR | 95%CI | Heterogeneity | Networksize | HR | 95%CI | Heterogeneity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Depression | ||||||||
| Covariate | 14 | 1.13 | 1.06,1.22 | I280, P < 0.001 | 6 | 0.88 | 0.80,0.97 | I245, P0.11 |
| Nocovariate | 14 | 1.06 | 1.02,1.11 | I247, P0.02 | 4 | 0.98 | 0.95,1.01 | I289, P < 0.001 |
| Socialcontactvariable | ||||||||
| Covariate | 16 | 1.04 | 1.02,1.06 | I20, P0.62 | ||||
| Nocovariate | 12 | 1.19 | 1.08,1.31 | I279, P < 0.001 | ||||
| NOS-criteria: Selection |
Loneliness | HR | 95%CI | Heterogeneity | Networksize | HR | 95%CI | Heterogeneity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Representativeness | ||||||||
| Truly | 16 | 1.11 | 1.0, 1.16 | I276, P < 0.001 | 5 | 0.98 | 0.95, 1.00 | I278, P < 0.001 |
| Somewhat | 8 | 3 | ||||||
| Selectedgroup | 4 | 1.04 | 1.00, 1.08 | I20, P0.44 | 2 | 0.85 | 0.70, 1.04 | I230, P0.23 |
| Nodescription | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| Outcome | ||||||||
| Follow-up long enough? | ||||||||
| Yes | 28 | 10 | ||||||
| No | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| < 5yrs | 3 | 1.13 | 1.06, 1.19 | I279, P < 0.001 | 1 | 0.92 | 0.86, 0.99 | I284, P < 0.001 |
| 5–10yrs | 14 | 6 | ||||||
| > 10yrs | 11 | 1.07 | 1.02, 1.12 | I248, P0.03 | 3 | 0.76 | 0.51, 1.15 | I270, P0.04 |
| Adequacy of follow-up | ||||||||
| Complete follow-up | 2 | 3 | ||||||
| Smallnumberlost/descriptionprovided | 13 | 1.11 | 1.05, 1.18 | I281, P < 0.001 | 2 | 0.89 | 0.80, 1.00 | I280, P < 0.001 |
| Higher number lost/no description | 9 | 3 | ||||||
| Nostatement | 4 | 1.09 | 1.03, 1.15 | I243, P0.04 | 2 | 0.95 | 0.89, 1.02 | I279, P0.001 |
HR hazard ratio
95% CI: 95% confidence interval