We acknowledge Smith & Porter's interest in the reasons for why we did not focus on the relationship between merely starting any antipsychotic and developing diabetes, but instead reviewed the evidence for an association between diabetes and type of antipsychotic medication. There has been increasing concern that second-generation antipsychotics may be more diabetogenic than first-generation antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia. Despite this concern, there is a lack of good evidence to support this apparent phenomenon and so it was essential to carry out our systematic review prior to developing guidelines for diabetes screening and management.

We agree with Smith & Porter that our paper has found strong heterogeneity between studies which is clearly an important finding from our study. It is only by undertaking systematic reviews that one can determine that heterogeneity exists. Therefore, without our systematic review this would not have been clear. Our meta-analysis uses random effects methodology, which means we have analysed the average effect over the studies. This is a meaningful concept in the presence of heterogeneity. As for looking at absolute risks, the heterogeneity between studies is so great as to make even random effects pooling absurd. This is why pooled analyses virtually always pool relative risks rather than risk differences.

Smith & Porter have highlighted our conclusions that methodological limitations were found in most studies. As current evidence is poor, it should not be used alone in making clinical decisions concerning diabetes screening and management for patients with schizophrenia. Regardless of whether first- or second-generation antipsychotics are prescribed, routine screening for diabetes in all patients with schizophrenia should be undertaken.