Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of results from the meta-analysis of the 16 studies included

From: Robotic versus open partial nephrectomy in the context of mild severity complications: a meta-analysis of comparative studies supplemented by meta-regression

Parameter/model

Method

Pooled studies

Studies with patient matching

Studies without patient matching

Single-center studies

Multicenter studies

Studies published after 2015

Studies published before 2015

CD ≤ II

(n = 16)

FE

MA

0.52 [0.43; 0.64]

0.55 [0.42; 0.73]

0.49 [0.37; 0.65]

0.54 [0.43; 0.68]

0.46 [0.31; 0.69]

0.49 [0.39; 0.60]

0.80 [0.46; 1.38]

MR

There is a resulting formation and expansion of an advantage provided by the robotic over the open approach, which becomes statistically significant from 2015 and onwards

There is a resulting formation and expansion of an advantage provided by the robotic over the open approach, which becomes statistically significant from 2016 and onwards

There is an almost constant advantage provided by the robotic over the open approach, which becomes statistically significant from 2014 and onwards

There is a resulting formation and expansion of an advantage provided by the robotic over the open approach, which becomes statistically significant from 2017 and onwards

×

×

×

  1. Note that the bold black font corresponds to statistically significant results, whereas gray to non-statistically significant. Abbreviations: CD ≤ II: incidence of mild postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo grades I and II), MA: meta-analysis (outside the brackets lies the expected value of the petoOR, while inside the brackets its 95% confidence interval is presented), MR: meta-regression analysis, FE: fixed effects model, n: number of studies