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

Table 2 Subgroup analysis for ISS in MM patients with high RDW

Analysis	N	Reference	Fixed-effect model		Random-effect model		Heterogeneity		P value Between group heterogeneity
Analysis	N	Reference	OR (95%CI)	P	OR (95%CI)	P	I2	Ph	P value Between group heterogeneity
ISS	7	[20, 22,23,24,25,26,27]	1.61(1.22,2.11)	0.001	1.53(0.97–2.42)	0.068	63.3	0.012
Subgroup1: Sample size									0.002
≥ 100	5	[20, 22, 24, 25, 27]	1.97(1.45–2.66)	0.000	2.00(1.37–2.92)	0.000	35.9	0.182
< 100	2	[23, 26]	0.62(0.32–1.20)	0.157	0.62(0.32,1.20)	0.157	0.0	0.551
Subgroup2: Cut-off									0.058
≥ 15	4	[22, 23, 26, 27]	1.25 (0.85–1.82)	0.256	1.12 (0.54–2.32)	0.771	71.7	0.014
< 15	3	[20, 24, 25]	2.12 (1.43–3.14)	0.000	2.12 (1.41–3.20)	0.000	6.2	0.345
Subgroup3: Parameter									0.064
RDW-CV	6	[20, 22,23,24,25,26]	1.44(1.06–1.94)	0.018	1.37(0.84–2.23)	0.210	61.3	0.024
RDW-SD	1	[27]	2.89(1.47–5.71)	0.002	2.89(1.47–5.71)	0.002	-	-

N number of studies, OR odds ratio, 95% CI 95% confidence interval, Ph P values of Q test for heterogeneity test

ISSN: 1471-2407