Summary of findings: pioglitazone monotherapy vs no intervention: All‐cause mortality
- Population
- people at increased risk for developing type 2 diabetes
- Intervention
- Summary of findings: pioglitazone monotherapy
- Comparison
- no intervention
- Outcome
- All‐cause mortality
It is very uncertain whether summary of findings: pioglitazone monotherapy changes all‐cause mortality (N) compared with no intervention (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary of findings: pioglitazone monotherapy vs no intervention All‐cause mortality (N) · people at increased risk of developing T2DM It is very uncertain whether summary of findings: pioglitazone monotherapy changes all‐cause mortality (N) compared with no intervention (very low certainty). Pioglitazone for prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its associated complications in people… (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.85 [0.38, 1.91] | 3 studies · 866 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pioglitazone for prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its associated complications in people at risk for the development of… 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Summary of findings: pioglitazone monotherapy vs intensive behaviour‐changing intervention · people at increased risk for developing type 2 diabetes · 1 review
- Summary of findings: pioglitazone monotherapy vs placebo · people at increased risk for developing type 2 diabetes · 1 review
- Summary of findings: pioglitazone monotherapy vs another pharmacological glucose‐lowering monotherapy · people at increased risk for developing type 2 diabetes · 1 review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.