Table 2 Risk of heart failure in Rosiglitazone users compared with Pioglitazone users, overall and subgroup analyses
| Â | Relative risk (95% Confidence interval) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Â | Â | Subgroup analyses | |
Study (Author, Year) | All users | New users | New users, Aged ≥ 65 years |
Individual Studies | Â | Â | Â |
Chou [33] | 0.82 (0.62-1.09) | — | — |
Graham [34] | 1.25 (1.16-1.34) | 1.25 (1.16-1.34) | 1.25 (1.16-1.34) |
Juurlink [37] | 1.30 (1.16-1.46) | 1.30 (1.16-1.46) | 1.30 (1.16-1.46) |
Wertz [43] | 1.12 (0.94-1.33) | 1.12 (0.94-1.33) | — |
Winkelmayer [44] | 1.13 (1.01-1.26) | 1.13 (1.01-1.26) | 1.13 (1.01-1.26) |
Meta-Analysis | Â | Â | Â |
Fixed effects, RR | 1.20 (1.15-1.27) | 1.22 (1.16-1.28) | 1.23 (1.17-1.30) |
Random effects, RR | 1.16 (1.05-1.28) | 1.21 (1.14-1.30) | 1.23 (1.14-1.32) |
Heterogeneity statistics | τ2 = 0.01 | τ2 = 0.00 | τ2 = 0.00 |
|  | χ 2 = 11.81 (df = 4) | χ 2 = 4.35 (df = 3) | χ 2 = 3.33 (df = 2) |
|  | I 2 = 66% | I 2 = 31% | I 2 = 40% |