Skip to main content

Table 4 Meta-regression models evaluating the influence of the confounded factors to the PSM rate

From: Oncological safety of intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy compared with conventional process: a pooled review and meta-regression analysis based on available studies

Factor Age D-fascia preservation Puboprostatic ligament sparing Selective/no ligation of DVC pT2 cancer percent Selection Score of Oncologic Safety
β ± SE P-value β ± SE P-value β ± SE P-value β ± SE P-value β ± SE P-value β ± SE P-value
Total PSM rate in all-stage 0.013 ± 0.006 0.044 −0.032 ± 0.037 0.385 −0.022 ± 0.039 0.561 0.021 ± 0.045 0.643 −0.004 ± 0.002 0.012 −0.013 ± 0.005 0.012
PSM rate in pT2 cancer 0.005 ± 0.005 0.303 0.011 ± 0.032 0.727 −0.050 ± 0.032 0.120 −0.044 ± 0.033 0.183
PSM rate in pT3 cancer 0.041 ± 0.018 0.025 −0.001 ± 0.097 0.990 0.111 ± 0.075 0.139 −0.111 ± 0.074 0.133
  1. Each of the confounded factors including patients’ age, preservation technique(D-fascia preservation, puboprostatic ligament sparing and selective/no ligation of DVC) was included respectively in the meta-regression models to assess the influence of the confounded factors to the PSM rate. If p-value was less than 0.05, the cofficient and p-value were showed as boldface in the table. D-fascia Denonvilliers fascia, DVC dorsal venous complex, PSM positive surgical margin, β coefficient, SE standard error