Skip to main content
. 2018 Feb 2;2(1):1–26. doi: 10.3233/ADR-170042

Table 2.

Meta-Analysis Data

No. Study ID Hazard ratio 95% Lower Confidence Limit 95% Upper Confidence Limit Logn Hazard Ratio: Ln (hr) Std Err Year Sample Size: patient users (N)
1. Ray* FGA 1.990 1.686 2.340 0.6881 0.085 2009 44,218
2. Ray* SGA 2.260 1.879 2.720 0.8154 0.094 2009 46,089
3. Rossom 1.674 1.062 2.637 0.5152 0.232 2010 18,127
4. Musicco FGA 3.700 2.600 5.100 1.3083 0.172 2011 156
5. Musicco SGA 2.500 2.033 3.100 0.9163 0.106 2011 806
6. Gisev 2.070 1.730 2.470 0.7280 0.091 2012 332
7. Gardette 1.930 1.148 3.245 0.6575 0.265 2012 102
8. Jones* FGA 2.340 2.281 2.401 0.8502 0.013 2013 115,491
9. Jones* SGA 1.760 1.711 1.811 0.5653 0.014 2013 67,901
10. Langballe 2.052 1.693 2.486 0.7188 0.098 2014 8,214
11. Piersanti SGA 2.354 1.697 3.265 0.8561 0.167 2014 375
12. Jennum FGA 1.292 1.218 1.366 0.2562 0.029 2015 259
13. Jennum SGA 1.442 1.400 1.484 0.3660 0.015 2015 832
14. Maust 1.688 1.370 2.090 0.5235 0.108 2015 14,788
15. Arai 1.675 0.900 3.118 0.5158 0.317 2016 4,873
16. Connors 1.610 1.290 2.020 0.4762 0.114 2016 779
17. Nielsen 2.310 2.142 2.492 0.8372 0.039 2017 16,976
18. Koponen 1.610 1.530 1.700 0.4762 0.027 2017 13,576
19. Martin-Arias* 2.030 1.760 2.330 0.7080 0.072 2017 5,206
20. Chiesa 1.570 0.945 2.607 0.4511 0.259 2017 135
TOTAL 359,235

*values based on antipsychotic drug users in the general population.