Credibility of claims of subgroup effects in randomised controlled trials: systematic review

子群分析 医学 梅德林 随机对照试验 荟萃分析 临床试验 样本量测定 可靠性 家庭医学 内科学 统计 数学 政治学 法学
作者
Xin Sun,Matthias Briel,Jason W. Busse,John J. You,Elie A. Akl,Filip Mejza,Małgorzata M Bała,Dirk Bassler,Dominik Mertz,Natalia Diaz-Granados,Per Olav Vandvik,Germán Málaga,Sadeesh Srinathan,Philipp Dahm,B. C. Johnston,Pablo Alonso‐Coello,Basil Hassouneh,Stephen D. Walter,D. Heels‐Ansdell,Neera Bhatnagar,Carlo La Vecchia,Gordon Guyatt
出处
期刊:BMJ [BMJ]
卷期号:344 (mar15 1): e1553-e1553 被引量:287
标识
DOI:10.1136/bmj.e1553
摘要

To investigate the credibility of authors' claims of subgroup effects using a representative sample of recently published randomised controlled trials.Systematic review.Core clinical journals, as defined by the National Library of Medicine, in Medline.Randomised controlled trials published in 2007. Using prespecified criteria, teams of trained reviewers independently judged whether authors claimed subgroup effects and the strength of their claims. Reviewers assessed each of these claims against 10 predefined criteria, developed through a search of existing criteria and a consensus process.Of 207 randomised controlled trials reporting subgroup analyses, 64 (31%) made claims for the primary outcome. Of those, 20 were strong claims and 28 claims of a likely effect. Authors included subgroup variables measured at baseline in 60 (94%) trials, used subgroup variable as a stratification factor at randomisation in 13 (20%), clearly prespecified their hypotheses in 26 (41%), correctly prespecified direction in 4 (6%), tested a small number of hypotheses in 28 (44%), carried out a test of interaction that proved statistically significant in 6 (9%), documented replication of a subgroup effect with previous related studies in 21 (33%), identified consistency of a subgroup effect across related outcomes in 19 (30%), and provided a compelling indirect evidence for the effect in 14 (22%). In the 19 trials making more than one claim, only one (5%) checked the independence of the interaction. Of the 64 claims, 54 (84%) met four or fewer of the 10 criteria. For strong claims, more than 50% failed each of the individual criteria, and only three (15%) met more than five criteria.Authors often claim subgroup effects in their trial report. However, the credibility of subgroup effects, even when claims are strong, is usually low. Users of the information should treat claims that fail to meet most criteria with scepticism. Trial researchers should report the conduct of subgroup analyses and provide sufficient evidence when claiming a subgroup effect or suggesting a possible effect.

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
更新
PDF的下载单位、IP信息已删除 (2025-6-4)

科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
1秒前
Steven发布了新的文献求助10
1秒前
在水一方应助虎虎采纳,获得10
2秒前
哈哈哈发布了新的文献求助10
2秒前
Jean0603完成签到,获得积分10
4秒前
6秒前
6秒前
情怀应助iwww采纳,获得10
6秒前
6秒前
共享精神应助Lala采纳,获得10
7秒前
7秒前
7秒前
香蕉觅云应助LI电池采纳,获得10
7秒前
8秒前
zuo完成签到,获得积分10
8秒前
8秒前
gdzgd完成签到,获得积分10
9秒前
10秒前
10秒前
10秒前
123关闭了123文献求助
11秒前
虎虎完成签到,获得积分10
11秒前
英俊的访波完成签到,获得积分10
11秒前
GodLoveEdison发布了新的文献求助10
11秒前
淡定映之发布了新的文献求助10
12秒前
12秒前
12秒前
13秒前
YYY完成签到,获得积分10
14秒前
玄枵发布了新的文献求助10
14秒前
张乐发布了新的文献求助10
14秒前
gyhmm发布了新的文献求助10
14秒前
14秒前
小马甲应助NN采纳,获得30
14秒前
15秒前
科研欣路发布了新的文献求助10
16秒前
艾什利灰丶完成签到,获得积分20
16秒前
贺知什么书完成签到,获得积分10
16秒前
16秒前
Sylvia完成签到,获得积分10
17秒前
高分求助中
【重要!!请各位用户详细阅读此贴】科研通的精品贴汇总(请勿应助) 10000
植物基因组学(第二版) 1000
Plutonium Handbook 1000
Three plays : drama 1000
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Madrid Code) (Regnum Vegetabile) 1000
Psychology Applied to Teaching 14th Edition 600
Robot-supported joining of reinforcement textiles with one-sided sewing heads 600
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 医学 生物 工程类 有机化学 生物化学 物理 内科学 纳米技术 计算机科学 化学工程 复合材料 遗传学 基因 物理化学 催化作用 冶金 细胞生物学 免疫学
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 4094965
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 3633242
关于积分的说明 11516142
捐赠科研通 3343887
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 1837841
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 905391
科研通“疑难数据库(出版商)”最低求助积分说明 823111