Table 3.

Overall and subgroup analyses of high fat mass vs. low fat mass on overall survival in prostate cancer patients.

Outcomes	No. of comparisons	Sample size	Main effect			Subgroup differences
			HR (95% CI)	I2	p value	χ2	p value
Multivariable analysis
Overall effect	8	1,697	0.98 (0.75–1.28)	70%	0.888	–	–
Overall effect without outlier	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Population subgroups
Advanced disease	7	1,296	1.05 (0.75–1.48)	75%	0.769	1.2	0.273
Localised disease	2	802	0.82 (0.63–1.08)	15%	0.166
Outcome subgroups
VAT	4	821	1.03 (0.74–1.43)	52%	0.873	4.0a	0.045
SAT	3	758	0.68 (0.54–0.84)	0%	0.001	3.1b	0.080
VAT/SAT ratio	2	519	1.50 (1.15–1.97)	0%	0.003	19.5c	<0.001
Multivariate models controlling for BMI
Yes	7	1,296	1.05 (0.75–1.48)	75%	0.769	1.2	0.273
No	2	802	0.82 (0.63–1.08)	15%	0.166
Univariable analysis
Overall effect	12	744	0.84 (0.67–1.05)	60%	0.126	–	–
Overall effect without outlier	11	744	0.77 (0.64–0.92)	39%	0.005	–	–
Population subgroups
Advanced disease	11	691	0.85 (0.67–1.08)	63%	0.189	–	–
Localised disease	1	53	0.66 (0.31–1.43)	–	–
Outcome subgroups
VAT	5	691	0.93 (0.67–1.30)	59%	0.678	3.5a	0.061
SAT	4	606	0.64 (0.52–0.79)	0%	<0.001	0.6b	0.438
VAT/SAT ratio	2	271	1.32 (0.59–2.96)	42%	0.503	2.8c	0.092
FM	1	53	0.66 (0.31–1.43)	–	–	–	–

BMI body mass index, FM fat mass, HR hazard ratio, I² indicator of heterogeneity (%), SAT subcutaneous adipose tissue, VAT visceral adipose tissue.

^aVAT vs. SAT.

^bVAT vs. VAT/SAT.

^cSAT vs. VAT/SAT.