Summary of findings: pioglitazone monotherapy vs no intervention: Serious adverse events (N)
- Population
- people at increased risk for developing type 2 diabetes
- Intervention
- Summary of findings: pioglitazone monotherapy
- Comparison
- no intervention
- Outcome
- Serious adverse events (N)
Summary of findings: pioglitazone monotherapy showed no clear difference in serious adverse events (N) compared with no intervention (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary of findings: pioglitazone monotherapy vs no intervention Serious adverse events (N) · people at increased risk of developing T2DM Summary of findings: pioglitazone monotherapy showed no clear difference in serious adverse events (N) compared with no intervention (low certainty). Pioglitazone for prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its associated complications in people… (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.71 [0.38, 1.32] | 7 studies · 1211 participants | 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 another pharmacological glucose‐lowering monotherapy · people at increased risk for developing type 2 diabetes · 1 review
- 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
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.