Table 2 Meta-analysis summary table
Study | Risk ratio | 95% CI | %weight |
|---|---|---|---|
Racine et al., 2011 [28] | 1.00 | 0.97 to 1.03 | 13.04 |
Yamada et al., 2014 [33] | 1.00 | 0.86 to 1.17 | 2.48 |
Andrews et al., 2011 [14] | 1.06 | 1.00 to 1.11 | 9.60 |
Barrera et al., 2006 [22] | 0.90 | 0.83 to 0.98 | 6.05 |
Callisaya et al., 2017 [29] | 0.96 | 0.80 to 1.15 | 1.94 |
Cheskin et al., 2008 [25] | 2.15 | 1.00 to 4.61 | 0.12 |
Clark et al., 2004 [15] | 1.04 | 0.95 to 1.15 | 4.82 |
Glasgow et al., 2000 [30] | 1.00 | 0.87 to 1.15 | 3.01 |
Hesselink et al., 2004 [13] | 1.18 | 0.99 to 1.42 | 1.90 |
Hilbernik et al., 2005 [23] | 1.01 | 0.97 to 1.05 | 11.33 |
John et al., 2012 [34] | 1.14 | 0.99 to 1.30 | 3.05 |
Jonsdottir et al., 2015 [16] | 0.91 | 0.78 to 1.06 | 2.39 |
Khunti et al., 2012 [12] | 1.08 | 0.99 to 1.18 | 6.02 |
Larsen, et al., 2011 [26] | 0.93 | 0.84 to 1.02 | 4.99 |
Lee et al., 2015 [17] | 1.00 | 0.90 to 1.11 | 4.75 |
Meyer et al., 2015 [18] | 1.16 | 0.82 to 1.63 | 0.58 |
Nam et al., 2012 [24] | 0.81 | 0.69 to 0.95 | 2.25 |
Ng et al., 2011 [31] | 0.79 | 0.57 to 1.10 | 0.63 |
Nicolucci et al., 2012 [19] | 1.00 | 0.95 to 1.05 | 10.08 |
Praet et al., 2008 [27] | 0.95 | 0.66 to 1.36 | 0.53 |
Sevick et al., 2012 [32] | 1.01 | 0.93 to 1.09 | 6.27 |
Walters et al., 2013 [20] | 0.95 | 0.84 to 1.07 | 3.48 |
Wilson et al., 2008 [21] | 0.96 | 0.69 to 1.30 | 0.69 |
exp(theta) | 1.00 | 0.97 to 1.03 |