Skip to main content

Table 4 Subgroup analysis using fixed-effects models

From: Association between adhering to a dietary approach to stop hypertension and risk of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  

Number of effect sizes

ESa

95%CIb

I2

Pheterogeneity

Association between DASH and CRC

Overall

 

13

0.81

0.73–0.89

76.9%

 < 0.001

Gender

Male

4

0.77

0.74–0.81

68.1%

0.025

Female

5

0.84

0.79–0.90

77.8%

 

Country

USA

6

0.81

0.78–0.84

23.4%

0.258

Non-US countries

7

0.85

0.77–0.95

86.5%

 < 0.001

Study design

Cohort

8

0.81

0.79–0.84

24.6%

0.233

Case–Control

5

0.59

0.42–0.83

89.8%

 < 0.001

Quality of studies

High quality

8

0.84

0.80–0.89

18.5%

0.283

Moderate quality

5

0.79

0.76–0.83

90%

 < 0.001

Energy adjustment

Energy adjusted

11

0.81

0.79–0.84

72..5%

 < 0.001

No adjustment

2

0.72

0.57–0.89

93%

 < 0.001

Outcome assessment

Colonoscopy

3

0.81

0.67–0.97

91.5%

 < 0.001

Medical records

10

0.81

0.78–0.84

68.3%

 < 0.001

Exposure assessment

Dixon's index

3

0.84

0.78–0.90

58.1%

0.092

Mellen's index

2

0.78

0.72–0.85

0.0%

0.886

Fung's index

8

0.79

0.75–0.84

74.3%

 < 0.001

Gunther's index

2

0.82

0.76–0.89

0.0%

0.680

Modified DASH index

4

0.88

0.77–1.00

85.2%

 < 0.001

Association between DASH and RC

Overall

 

6

0.75

0.66–0.86

53.2%

0.058

Gender

Male

2

0.70

0.63–0.77

0.0%

0.382

Female

2

0.82

0.70–0.96

0.0%

0.447

Country

USA

4

0.74

0.68–0.79

64.6%

0.037

Non-US countries

2

0.77

0.48–1.24

54.0%

0.140

Study design

Cohort

4

0.74

0.68–0.79

64.4%

0.037

Case–Control

2

0.77

0.48–1.24

54.0%

0.140

Quality of studies

High quality

4

0.76

0.66–0.87

63.2%

0.043

Moderate quality

2

0.73

0.67–0.79

56.5%

0.130

Energy adjustment

 

6

0.75

0.66–0.86

53.2%

0.058

Outcome assessment

 

6

0.75

0.66–0.86

53.2%

0.058

Exposure assessment

Dixon's index

3

0.78

0.68–0.90

72.7%

0.026

Mellen's index

2

0.67

0.57–0.79

0.0%

0.813

Fung's index

3

0.70

0.62–0.79

53.9%

0.114

Gunther's index

2

0.80

0.68–0.93

0.0%

0.569

Modified DASH index

2

0.77

0.48–1.24

54.0%

0.140

Association between DASH and CC

Overall

 

5

0.83

0.79–0.88

29.5%

0.225

Gender

Male

2

0.81

0.76–0.87

0.0%

0.658

Female

2

0.87

0.80–0.95

73.5%

0.052

Country

USA

3

0.83

0.79–0.87

0.0%

0.559

Non-US countries

2

1.11

0.68–1.79

68.3%

0.076

Study design

Cohort

3

0.83

0.79–0.87

0.0%

0.559

Case–Control

2

1.11

0.68–1.79

68.3%

0.076

Quality of studies

High quality

3

0.86

0.74–1.00

53.4%

0.117

Moderate quality

2

0.83

0.79–0.87

12%

0.286

Energy adjustment

 

5

0.83

0.79–0.88

29.5%

0.225

Outcome assessment

 

5

0.83

0.79–0.88

29.5%

0.225

Exposure assessment

Dixon's index

3

0.86

0.78–0.95

0.0%

0.487

Mellen's index

2

0.82

0.75–0.91

0.0%

0.815

Fung's index

2

0.80

0.73–0.88

0.0%

0.459

Gunther's index

2

0.83

0.76–0.92

0.0%

0.423

Modified DASH index

2

1.11

0.68–1.79

68.3%

0.076

Association between DASH and CRA

    

Overall

 

4

0.42

0.22–0.80

90.7%

 < 0.001

Gender

Male

2

0.72

0.60–0.87

86.4%

0.007

Female

2

0.92

0.73–1.16

95.6%

 < 0.001

Country

USA

2

0.85

0.73–0.99

76%

0.041

Non-US countries

2

0.09

0.04–0.21

0.0%

0.318

Study design

Case-controls

4

0.42

0.22–0.80

90.7%

 < 0.001

Cohort

     

Quality of studies

High quality

2

0.85

0.73–0.99

76%

0.041

Moderate quality

2

0.09

0.04–0.21

0.0%

0.318

Energy adjustment

 

4

0.42

0.22–0.80

90.7%

 < 0.001

Outcome assessment

 

4

0.42

0.22–0.80

90.7%

 < 0.001

Exposure assessment

Dixon's index

2

0.85

0.73–0.99

76%

0.041

Fung's index

2

0.09

0.04–0.21

0.0%

0.318

  1. aES Effect Size
  2. bCI Confidence Interval
Back to article page

BMC Gastroenterology

ISSN: 1471-230X

Contact us