Prognostic Role of Long Noncoding RNAs in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis
Table 4
Subgroup analyses of the prognosis of OSCC patients with lncRNA expression.
Studies ()
HR (95% CI)
value
Heterogeneity (%)
value
for Begg (2-tailed)
for Egger (2-tailed)
Pub. bias
AHRa (95% CI)
value
All studies (17)
1.84 (1.51-2.24)
<0.001
71.80
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Yes
1.52 (1.26-1.84)
<0.001
U&M analysis
Univariate (13)
1.62 (1.35-1.95)
<0.001
67.48
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Yes
1.43 (1.20-1.71)
<0.001
Multivariate (4)
3.51 (2.16-5.71)
<0.001
9.57
0.35
0.50
0.22
Yes
2.50 (1.65-3.78)
<0.001
Source of HR
Sur curve (9)
1.45 (1.20-1.74)
<0.001
66.98
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Yes
1.18 (1.10-1.27)
<0.001
Reported (8)
2.19 (1.74-2.74)
<0.001
37.28
0.12
0.04
<0.01
Yes
1.85 (1.51-2.26)
<0.001
NOS scoreb
High (9)
1.91 (1.56-2.32)
<0.001
11.96
0.34
0.04
<0.01
Yes
1.64 (1.38-1.96)
<0.001
Medium (6)
1.92 (1.33-2.78)
<0.001
79.36
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
Yes
1.45 (1.01-2.07)
0.04
Low (2)
3.78 (1.92-7.44)
<0.001
36.72
0.21
—
—
NO
—
—
Abbreviations: HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; Pub. bias: publication bias; AHR: adjusted HR; U&M analysis: univariate & multivariate analysis. aAHR: if publication bias was found, the HRs were adjusted and reevaluated; if the number of combined studies was not >3, the publication bias could not be analyzed. bNOS score: the NOS score was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies, and NOS scores of 1–3, 4–6, and 7–9 were considered to indicate low, medium, and high quality, respectively.
