Skip to main content

Table 1 Main characteristics of all the studies included in the meta-analysis

From: Is RDW a clinically relevant prognostic factor for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Study

Year

Country

Sample size(M/F)

Age(years)

Follow-up (months)

ISS stage (n)

Cut-off

Outcome

HR

NOS score

Lee H [20]

2014

Korea

146(91/55)

61(32–83)

47(3–104)

I/II/III

60/49/35

14.50

PFS

Reported(M)

8

Wang J [22]

2017

China

196(110/86)

65(33–82)

33.5(1–120)

I/II/III

6/69/71

18.05

OS

Reported(M)

8

Meng S [21]

2017

China

166 (88/78)

62(34–93)

17.79(0.63–62.83)

I/II/III

21/29/116

14.00

OS/PFS

Reported(M)

8

Zhou D [24]

2018

China

162(87/75)

61(40–87)

NR

I/II/III

35/67/60

14.00

OS/PFS

Reported(M)

7

Ma Y [23]

2018

China

78(47/31)

60.7(43–81)

42.6(2–136)

I-II/III

51/27

15.50

OS/PFS

Reported(M)

8

Sun C [26]

2019

China

99(52/47)

65(33–82)

NR

I-II/III

52/47

17.95

OS/PFS

Reported(M)

7

Liu S [25]

2019

China

175(95/80)

61

33.63(2.17–79.33)

I/II/III

23/44/108

14.00

OS

Reported(M)

7

Li DY [27]

2020

China

143(88/55)

63(35–83)

NR

I/II/III

30/43/70

47.9a

OS

Reported(M)

7

  1. OS overall survival, PFS progression-free survival, HR hazard ratio, “M” means the HR come from multivariate analysis, NR not reported NOS Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale
  2. aRDW was present as RDW-SD