Copyright
©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Gastroenterol. Mar 14, 2016; 22(10): 3038-3051
Published online Mar 14, 2016. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i10.3038
Published online Mar 14, 2016. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i10.3038
Clinicopathological features | n | Cases | Analytical model | OR | 95%CI | Heterogeneity | |
I2(%) | P value | ||||||
Gender (male vs female) | 4 | 677 | REM | 1.91 | 1.06-3.44 | 55.0 | 0.084 |
ALT (≥ 42 U/L vs < 42 U/L) | 3 | 610 | REM | 1.23 | 0.64-2.35 | 63.3 | 0.066 |
AST (≥ 37 U/L vs < 37 U/L) | 3 | 610 | REM | 1.93 | 1.11-3.35 | 52.8 | 0.120 |
TBIL(≥ 20 μmol/L vs < 20 μmol/L) | 3 | 610 | FEM | 0.91 | 0.62-1.33 | 0.00 | 0.979 |
γ-GT (≥ 64 U/L vs < 64 U/L) | 3 | 610 | REM | 0.77 | 0.43-1.38 | 61.7 | 0.074 |
AFP (≥ 20 ng/mL vs < 20 ng/mL) | 4 | 669 | FEM | 3.86 | 2.58-5.78 | 0.00 | 0.804 |
CA19-9 (≥ 37 U/mL vs < 37 U/mL) | 4 | 668 | FEM | 0.47 | 0.34-0.65 | 0.00 | 0.806 |
Cirrhosis (yes vs no) | 4 | 672 | FEM | 6.44 | 4.33-9.56 | 38.8 | 0.179 |
Capsule formation (yes vs no) | 4 | 672 | FEM | 6.04 | 3.56-10.26 | 31.9 | 0.221 |
Differentiation (well/moderate vs poor) | 4 | 672 | REM | 0.86 | 0.41-1.80 | 73.5 | 0.010 |
Tumor location (both lobes vs one lobe) | 3 | 534 | FEM | 0.76 | 0.31-1.87 | 0.00 | 0.995 |
Tumor number (multiple vs single) | 4 | 672 | FEM | 0.91 | 0.57-1.46 | 0.00 | 0.983 |
Tumor size (≥ 5 cm vs < 5 cm) | 3 | 355 | FEM | 0.72 | 0.46-1.14 | 37.9 | 0.200 |
Lymph node metastasis (yes vs no) | 4 | 672 | FEM | 0.39 | 0.25-0.58 | 0.00 | 0.990 |
Vascular invasion(yes vs no) | 4 | 672 | REM | 1.10 | 0.49-2.43 | 69.0 | 0.021 |
- Citation: Wang Z, Sheng YY, Dong QZ, Qin LX. Hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus play different prognostic roles in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22(10): 3038-3051
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v22/i10/3038.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v22.i10.3038