Table 2.

Results as published versus DL (1986) versus SGS (2012).

Ref. from Table 1	Method	As published	DL	SGS	Ratio lengths DL:SGS
13	DL (cc)	1.7 (1.1–2.7){0.017}	1.73 (1.11–2.70)	2.13 (1.32–3.44){0.003}	0.75
14	DL (cc)	0.58 (0.50–0.68){<0.001}	0.58 (0.49–0.68)	0.58 (0.49–0.68){<0.001}	1.00
15	DL	0.80 (0.69–0.94){0.006}	0.81 (0.69–0.94)	0.79 (0.68–0.92){0.005}	1.04
16	Fixed	1.33 (1.13–1.56){<0.001}	1.35 (1.14–1.58)	1.36 (1.15–1.61){0.002}	0.96
17.1	Fixed (cc)	0.33 (0.23–0.47){<0.001}	0.41 (0.30–0.56)	0.39 (0.28–0.55){0.001}	0.96
17.2	Fixed (cc)	0.64 (0.46–0.86){0.007}	0.71 (0.55–0.93)	0.70 (0.44–1.11){0.11}	0.57
18.1	Fixed	0.93 (0.79–1.10){0.41}	0.94 (0.79–1.10)	0.94 (0.80–1.10){0.36}	1.03
18.2	DL (cc)	0.69 (0.56–0.84){<0.001}	0.69 (0.56–0.84)	0.72 (0.59–0.88){0.004}	0.97
19.1	DL (cc)	0.79 (0.65–0.95){0.01}	0.79 (0.65–0.95)	0.78 (0.68–0.90){0.001}	1.36
19.2	DL (cc)	1.39 (1.00–1.95){0.053}	1.40 (1.00–1.95)	1.40 (1.00–1.98){0.052}	0.97
20	DL (cc)	1.33 (0.95–1.86){0.094}	1.33 (0.95–1.86)	1.42 (0.99–2.06){0.058}	0.85
21	DL (cc)	0.96 (0.91–1.02){0.17}	0.96 (0.91–1.02)	0.96 (0.91–1.01){0.097}	1.10
22.1	DL (cc)	1.58 (1.21–2.06){0.001}	1.57 (1.19–2.06)	1.60 (1.28–2.01){0.001}	1.16
22.2	Fixed	1.73 (1.27–2.36){<0.001}	1.71 (1.26–2.33)	1.74 (1.31–2.31){0.008}	1.07
23.1	DL	0.57 (0.39–0.82){0.003}	0.57 (0.39–0.82)	0.54 (0.32–0.91){0.032}	0.73
23.2	DL	0.81 (0.36–1.83){0.61}	0.81 (0.36–1.83)	0.77 (0.19–3.03){0.58}	0.52
24	DL	0.93 (0.85–1.03){0.15}	0.93 (0.85–1.03)	0.93 (0.84–1.03){0.15}	0.95
25	DL	1.07 (1.00–1.14){0.05}	1.07 (1.00–1.14)	1.07 (1.02–1.12){0.009}	1.40

Entries in columns 3–5 are point estimate of relative risk (95% CI){two‐sided p‐value}. Studies where DL and SGS differ substantially are highlighted. DL is calculated from Comprehensive Meta‐Analysis version 2.0 and also employs standard continuity corrections for zero‐event cells. DL, DerSimonian and Laird; SGS, Shuster, Guo and Skylar; cc, continuity corrections for zero‐event cells.