Table 1.
Characteristics of involved KD patients in all included studies.
Fig 1.
PRISMA flow chart of studies inclusion and exclusion.
From: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 6(7): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. For more information, visit www.prisma-statement.org.
Fig 2.
Forest plot for comparison of the incidence of coronary artery lesion identified in the meta-analysis of six trials using random-effect model.
Only the first author of each study is given. Test for overall effect, z = 1.09, P = 0.28; test for heterogeneity, I2 = 53.1%, P = 0.058. RR, risk ratio. CI, confidence interval.
Fig 3.
Egger’s publication bias plots for the assessment of potential publication bias.
Each dot represents each study in the meta-analysis. Asymmetry of the dot distribution between regression lines indicates potential publication bias. (A) For the risk measurement of CAL, the Egger’s plot did not show marked asymmetry, P = 0.601, t = -0.57, 95% CI (-3.22, 2.12), (B) For the risk analysis of rKD, the Egger’s plot did not show significant asymmetry, P = 0.950, t = -0.07, 95% CI (-4.87, 4.66), (C) For the evaluation of days of fever or hospital, the Egger’s plot also did not show significant asymmetry, P = 0.390, t = -1.09, 95%CI (-10.37, 6.19). This Egger’s plot indicates no publication bias with a P value >0.05. RR, risk ratio. CI, confidence interval.
Fig 4.
Forest plot for comparison of the rate of IVIG-resistant KD in the meta-analysis of five trials using random-effect model.
Only the first author of each study is given. Test for overall effect, z = 1.98, P = 0.05; test for heterogeneity, I2 = 65.6%, P = 0.020. RR, risk ratio. CI, confidence interval.
Fig 5.
Forest plot for comparison of days of fever or hospital in the meta-analysis of four trials using random-effect model.
Only the first author of each study is given. SMD, the mean standard deviation. Test for overall effect, z = 0.27, P = 0.78; test for heterogeneity, I2 = 76.2%, P = 0.006. RR, risk ratio. CI, confidence interval.
Fig 6.
The meta-regression of the enrolled studies.
(A) For the regions of studies, the meta-regression did not detect it is a dramatic impact on the homogeneity of the enrolled studies, P = 0.220, t = 1.45, 95%CI (0.87, 1.55). (B) For diagnostic criteria for KD, the meta-regression did not find it is a dramatic impact on the homogeneity of the enrolled studies, P = 0.542, t = 0.67, 95%CI (0.43, 4.02). (C) For specific dosages of high-dose aspirin groups the meta-regression did not detect it is a dramatic impact on the homogeneity of the enrolled studies, P = 0.713, t = -0.39, 95%CI (0.35, 2.19). The meta-regression could determine the correlation between the potential factors and the existing heterogeneities. When a significant difference was discovered, the factor should have a dramatic impact on the homogeneity of the enrolled studies with a P value >0.05. rr, risk ratio. CI, confidence interval.
Fig 7.
Sensitivity analysis of the individual trials on the results.
(A) For the incidence analysis of CAL, (B) For the risk analysis of rKD, (C) For the evaluation of days of fever or hospital. Not any single study was detected to incur undue weight in the analysis.