Comparison 15. Low versus higher dose target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR‐I): subgroup analyses.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Acute rejection (publication type)	13	3898	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.24 [1.10, 1.41]
1.1 Abstract	0	0	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.2 Journal	13	3898	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.24 [1.10, 1.41]
2 Acute rejection (risk of bias for sequence generation and allocation concealment	13	3898	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.24 [1.10, 1.41]
2.1 Low risk of bias	5	2602	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.33 [1.15, 1.55]
2.2 High or unclear risk of bias	8	1296	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.06 [0.84, 1.33]
3 Acute rejection (CNI co‐intervention)	12	3766	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.24 [1.09, 1.41]
3.1 Tacrolimus	3	761	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.62 [1.19, 2.19]
3.2 Cyclosporin	9	3005	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.17 [1.02, 1.35]
4 Acute rejection (antibody induction)	13	3898	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.24 [1.10, 1.41]
4.1 No induction	10	2954	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.25 [1.09, 1.45]
4.2 Antibody induction	3	944	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.20 [0.90, 1.62]
5 Acute rejection (TOR‐I)	13	3898	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.24 [1.10, 1.41]
5.1 Everolimus	7	1966	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.11 [0.93, 1.33]
5.2 Sirolimus	6	1932	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.39 [1.16, 1.66]