Skip to main content

Table 2 Subgroup analysis and the pooled RR for patients

From: Allogeneic stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis from 2007 to 2017

Outcomes No. of studies Heterogeneity (I2), % RR (95% CI) p for heterogeneity
OS
 Auto-allo vs only-allo 2 0 1.28 (1.11, 1.49) 0.435
 Auto-allo vs tandem auto 6 79 0.91 (0.77, 1.06) 0.000
 MA vs RIC 4 38.8 1.14 (0.95, 1.36) 0.179
 High-risk vs standard-risk 5 0 0.83 (0.67, 1.03) 0.599
 First-line vs salvage therapy 4 42.6 1.42 (1.14, 1.78) 0.156
PFS
 Auto-allo vs only-allo 3 17.6 1.46 (1.19, 1.80) 0.297
 Auto-allo vs tandem auto 5 79.9 1.27 (0.84, 1.93) 0.001
 MA vs RIC 4 61.9 1.32 (0.95, 1.83) 0.049
 High-risk vs standard-risk 5 6.1 0.89 (0.66, 1.20) 0.372
 First-line vs salvage therapy 4 0 2.80 (1.97, 3.97) 0.948
TRM
 Auto-allo vs only-allo 2 0 0.41 (0.27, 0.61) 0.420
 Auto-allo vs tandem auto 3 0 6.09 (2.92, 12.7) 0.999
 MA vs RIC 4 26.0 1.48 (1.14, 1.92) 0.256
RR
 Auto-allo vs only-allo 3 75.9 0.80 (0.51, 1.24) 0.016
 Auto-allo vs tandem auto 2 48.1 0.63 (0.50, 0.78) 0.165
 MA vs RIC 3 65.6 0.64 (0.43, 0.95) 0.055
\