Gastroenterology
Volume 129, Issue 4 , Pages 1282-1293 , October 2005

Uncovered Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt for Refractory Ascites: A Meta-Analysis

  • Gennaro D’Amico

      Affiliations

    • Unit of Gastroenterology, Ospedale V. Cervello, Palermo, Italy
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress requests for reprints to: Gennaro D’Amico, MD, Unit of Gastroenterology, Ospedale V Cervello, Via Trabucco 180 90146, Palermo, Italy.; fax: (39) 091-6885111.
  • ,
  • Angelo Luca

      Affiliations

    • Istituto Mediterraneo per i Trapianti e Terapie ad alta Specializzazione (ISMETT), Palermo, Italy
  • ,
  • Alberto Morabito

      Affiliations

    • Cattedra di Statistica Medica, Dipartimento di Medicina e Chirurgia e Odontoiatria, Università di Milano, Milano, Italy
  • ,
  • Roberto Miraglia

      Affiliations

    • Istituto Mediterraneo per i Trapianti e Terapie ad alta Specializzazione (ISMETT), Palermo, Italy
  • ,
  • Mario D’amico

      Affiliations

    • Unit of Gastroenterology, Ospedale V. Cervello, Palermo, Italy

Received 18 January 2005 ,Accepted 30 March 2005.

  • Image Result

    Log-OR for mortality in the 5 trials included in the meta-analysis, according to the 2 variables significant at multivariate metaregression analysis, together with the summary random-effects metaregre

    Log-OR for mortality in the 5 trials included in the meta-analysis, according to the 2 variables significant at multivariate metaregression analysis, together with the summary random-effects metaregression line. Each trial is represented by an open circle and may be identified by the corresponding value of each variable as reported in . The area of each circle is proportional to the variance of each log-OR estimate.

  • Image Result
    OR for mortality in the 5 trials included in the meta-analysis, according to 6 relevant variables. Each trial is represented by an open circle and may be identified by the corresponding value of each

    OR for mortality in the 5 trials included in the meta-analysis, according to 6 relevant variables. Each trial is represented by an open circle and may be identified by the corresponding value of each variable as reported in . The area of each circle is proportional to the variance of each OR estimate. The horizontal dashed line is the equivalence line, for which the OR is equal to 1. The trial with the highest OR always had the extreme value for each variable.

  • Image Result
    OR (random-effects model), log scale for recurrence of ascites (top), encephalopathy (middle), and mortality (bottom) by including and excluding 1 outlier trial.10 Trials are identified by the first a

    OR (random-effects model), log scale for recurrence of ascites (top), encephalopathy (middle), and mortality (bottom) by including and excluding 1 outlier trial.10 Trials are identified by the first author and the year of publication. Open squares indicate the OR per each trial and the size of the squares is proportional to the weight of trials. The horizontal bars denote the 95% CIs of the ORs. The vertical solid line is the equivalence line, for which the OR is equal to 1. ORs on the left of the equivalence line denote benefit with TIPS whereas those on the right denote harm with TIPS. The vertical dashed line indicates the POR by excluding the outlier trial.

  • Image Result
    Egger’s publication bias plot. The standardized risk difference (TIPS − paracentesis) for mortality is plotted against the precision of the risk difference along with the regression line and the confi

    Egger’s publication bias plot. The standardized risk difference (TIPS − paracentesis) for mortality is plotted against the precision of the risk difference along with the regression line and the confidence interval (arrows) about the intercept. Failure of this confidence interval to include 0 would indicate asymmetry in the funnel plot and might give evidence of publication bias. Standardized risk difference, risk difference/standard error; precision of risk difference, 1/standard error.

PII: S0016-5085(05)01431-9

doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2005.07.031

Gastroenterology
Volume 129, Issue 4 , Pages 1282-1293 , October 2005