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