Meta-Analysis
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2018.
World J Clin Cases. Dec 6, 2018; 6(15): 985-994
Published online Dec 6, 2018. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v6.i15.985
Table 1 Characteristics of nine studies included in the meta-analysis
StudyCountryStudy typeInclusion periodSample sizeType of gastrectomyBMI cutoff pointAdjustmentQuality
Chen et al[20]ChinaRC2007-2010531LG251, 3, 59
Chen et al[17]ChinaRC2004-20161691LAG TLG251, 2, 4, 5, 6, 78
Jung et al[19]South KoreaRC2006-20121512LDG251, 2, 3, 4, 6, 78
Lee et al[27]South KoreaRC-20051485LAG251, 2, 3, 4, 5, 79
Oki et al[24]JapanRC2005-2009138TLDG251, 2, 4, 5, 6, 78
Shimada et al[21]JapanRC2007-2014173LADG251, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 78
Shin et al[23]South KoreaRC2003-2005192LG251, 2, 5, 6, 78
Yamada et al[22]JapanRC1999-2005141LADG251, 5, 6, 79
Yang et al[18]ChinaRC2009-2012214LAG251, 2, 3, 5, 6, 78
Table 2 Summary statistics of pooled odds ratio on various postoperative complications comparing high body mass index and normal body mass index groups receiving laparoscopic gastrectomy
Complication variableNo. of studiesNo. of pooled patientsPooled OR95%CITest of heterogeneity
Test of overall effect
P valueP value
Overall complications960771.120.95-1.330.7340.169
Anastomotic leakage639391.310.62-2.790.6420.476
Anastomotic stricture435870.850.27-2.660.4890.775
Anastomotic bleeding537980.630.27-1.450.9420.277
Abdominal abscess538011.560.91-2.670.6150.103
Pancreatic leakage639370.520.20-1.350.5810.179
Ileus435841.960.79-4.830.3820.144
Wound639391.770.92-3.420.2890.087