Skip to main content

Table 4 Risk of AMI in rosiglitazone users compared with metformin users, overall and subgroup analyses

From: Cardiovascular risk associated with the use of glitazones, metformin and sufonylureas: meta-analysis of published observational studies

Study (author, year) Overall RR (95 % CI)   Subgroup analyses
  Overall sensitivity analysisa New users
    Sensitivity analysisa
Loebstein, 2011 [35] Not estimable Not estimable Not estimable Not estimable
Walker, 2008 [39] 1.05 (0.67–1.66)    
Tzoulaki, 2009 [38] 1.10 (0.87–1.39)   Not reported Not reported
Dormuth, 2009 [28] 1.14 (0.90–1.44)    
McAfee, 2007 [36] 1.19 (0.84–1.68)    
Hsiao, 2009 [32] 2.09 (1.36–3.24) Not Included   Not included
Brownstein, 2010 [27] 2.51 (1.98–3.17) Not Included Not reported Not reported
Fixed-effects, sRR (95 % CI) 1.44 (1.28–1.61) 1.13 (0.98–1.30) 1.24 (1.05–1.47) 1.14 (0.95–1.36)
Random-effects, sRR (95 % CI) 1.42 (1.03–1.98) 1.13 (0.98–1.30) 1.29 (0.99–1.67) 1.14 (0.95–1.36)
Hetrogeneity statistics τ 2 = 0.14
χ 2 = 36.07, df = 5 (P < 0.00001)
I 2 = 86 %
τ 2 = 0.00
χ 2 = 0.21, df = 3 (P = 0.98)
I 2 = 0 %
τ 2 = 0.04
χ 2 = 6.62, df = 3; (P = 0.09)
I 2 = 55 %
τ 2 = 0.00
χ 2 = 0.17, df = 2; (P = 0.92)
I 2 = 0 %
  1. df degrees of freedom, RR relative risk, sRR summary relative risk
  2. a Sensitivity analysis: we excluded those studies with a combined high or unclear risk of bias for more than 30 % of the items in the RTI item bank