Tacrolimus (all routes)

Caesarean

R analysis
id Study   Lib. in paper Exposition period    Study type 
 Control type 
 
Tags OR 95%CI x1/n1 x0/n0 no cases no exposed ROB Ref.
S5633
R14214		 Al-Otaibi, 2019 Caesarian section throughout pregnancy retrospective cohort exposed to other treatment, sick Adjustment: No Co-exposure Mycophenolate: no Matched 1.92 [0.77;4.79] C 22/33   25/49 47 33
ref
S12402
R46231		 Kim, 2015 Cesarean section throughout pregnancy prospective cohort exposed to other treatment, sick Adjustment: No Co-exposure Mycophenolate: no 0.86 [0.35;2.12] C 12/28   28/60 40 28
ref
S12404
R46255		 Perales-Puchalt, 2012 Caesarean throughout pregnancy retrospective cohort exposed to other treatment, sick Adjustment: No Co-exposure Mycophenolate: no 2.25 [0.29;17.76] C 3/9   2/11 5 9
ref
Total 3 studies 1.34 [0.73;2.48] 92 70
x1: number of endpoints among exposed, n1: number of exposed; x0: number of endpoints among non exposed, n0: number of non exposed; C: calculated odds ratio from numbers of events and effectives

Forest plot

StudyTE95% CIn casesn exposedweightROBABCDEF Al-Otaibi, 2019Al-Otaibi, 2019 1.92[0.77; 4.79]473345%ROB confusion: NAROB selection: NAROB classification: NAROB missing: NAROB mesure: NAROB reporting: NA Kim, 2015Kim, 2015 0.86[0.35; 2.12]402846%ROB confusion: criticalROB selection: lowROB classification: lowROB missing: unclearROB mesure: moderateROB reporting: moderate Perales-Puchalt, 2012Perales-Puchalt, 2012 2.25[0.29; 17.76]599%ROB confusion: criticalROB selection: unclearROB classification: moderateROB missing: unclearROB mesure: moderateROB reporting: moderate Total (3 studies) I2 = 0% 1.34[0.73; 2.48]92700.25.01.0ROB: A: confusion, B: selection, C: classification, D: missing, E: measurement, F: reportinglow,moderate,serious,critical,unclear,

Sensitivity analysis

SubsetTE95% CIn casesn exposedkI2 Type of studies cohort studiescohort studies 1.34[0.73; 2.48]92700%NAAl-Otaibi, 2019 Kim, 2015 Perales-Puchalt, 2012 3 case control studiescase control studies 0 Type of controls exposed to other treatment, sickexposed to other treatment, sick 1.34[0.73; 2.48]92700%NAAl-Otaibi, 2019 Kim, 2015 Perales-Puchalt, 2012 3 Tags Adjustment   - No  - No 1.34[0.73; 2.48]92700%NAAl-Otaibi, 2019 Kim, 2015 Perales-Puchalt, 2012 3 Co-exposure Mycophenolate   - no  - no 1.34[0.73; 2.48]92700%NAAl-Otaibi, 2019 Kim, 2015 Perales-Puchalt, 2012 3 MatchedMatched 1.92[0.77; 4.79]4733 -NAAl-Otaibi, 2019 1 All studiesAll studies 1.34[0.73; 2.48]92700%NAAl-Otaibi, 2019 Kim, 2015 Perales-Puchalt, 2012 30.25.01.0

Publication bias and p-hacking diagnosis

funnel plot

Funnel plot not drawn. Less than 3 points.

Asymetry test p-value = NaN (by Egger's regression)

not enought points

p values plot

Funnel plot not drawn. Less than 3 points.

Sub-groups analysis using all included studies

excluded

Sub-groupsTE95% CIn casesn exposedkI2ROB type of controls exposed to other treatment, sick controlsexposed to other treatment, sick controls 1.34[0.73; 2.48]92700%NAAl-Otaibi, 2019 Kim, 2015 Perales-Puchalt, 2012 30.510.01.0