Meta-Analysis
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Clin Oncol. Jun 24, 2025; 16(6): 105691
Published online Jun 24, 2025. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v16.i6.105691
Figure 1
Figure 1 Flow chart of literature screening for systematic review and meta-analysis.
Figure 2
Figure 2 Forest plot of hypoxia-inducible factor 1α-positive and negative phenotypes compared on overall survival in breast cancer patients. Risk ratios and associated 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random-effects model. CI: Confidence interval.
Figure 3
Figure 3 Funnel plot illustrates the correlation between hypoxia-inducible factor 1α expression levels and breast cancer prognosis. A: Correlation of high hypoxia-inducible factor 1α expression in overall survival in breast cancer patients. An asymmetric funnel plot and Egger’s test P value (P = 0.02) less than 0.05 suggested potential publication bias in the included studies of overall meta-analysis; B: The trim-and-fill method analysis showed that there was no significant asymmetry in the trimmed funnel plot, and the relevant overall survival meta-analysis effect size remained significant after adjusting for publication bias; C: Correlation of high hypoxia-inducible factor 1α expression in disease-free survival in breast cancer patients. An asymmetric funnel plot and Egger’s test P value (P = 0.001) less than 0.05 suggested potential publication bias in the included studies of overall meta-analysis; D: The trim-and-fill method analysis showed that there was no significant asymmetry in the trimmed funnel plot, and the relevant disease-free survival meta-analysis effect size remained significant after adjusting for publication bias. OS: Overall survival; DFS: Disease-free survival; CI: Confidence interval.
Figure 4
Figure 4 Forest plot of hypoxia-inducible factor 1α positive and negative phenotypes compared on disease-free survival in breast cancer patients. Risk ratios and associated 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random-effects model. CI: Confidence interval.