Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia

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

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.contributor.author Sun, X.
dc.contributor.author Briel, M.
dc.contributor.author Busse, J.W.
dc.contributor.author You, J.J.
dc.contributor.author Akl, E.A.
dc.contributor.author Mejza, F.
dc.contributor.author Bala, M.M.
dc.contributor.author Bassler, D.
dc.contributor.author Mertz, D.
dc.contributor.author Diaz-Granados, N.
dc.contributor.author Vandvik, P.O.
dc.contributor.author Málaga Rodríguez, Germán Javier
dc.contributor.author Srinathan, S.K.
dc.contributor.author Dahm, P.
dc.contributor.author Johnston, B.C.
dc.contributor.author Alonso-Coello, P.
dc.contributor.author Hassouneh, B.
dc.contributor.author Walter, S.D.
dc.contributor.author Heels-Ansdell, D.
dc.contributor.author Bhatnagar, N.
dc.contributor.author Altman, D.G.
dc.contributor.author Guyatt, G.H.
dc.date.accessioned 2022-01-18T19:26:54Z
dc.date.available 2022-01-18T19:26:54Z
dc.date.issued 2012
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12866/11002
dc.description.abstract Objective: To investigate the credibility of authors' claims of subgroup effects using a representative sample of recently published randomised controlled trials. Design: Systematic review. Data source: Core clinical journals, as defined by the National Library of Medicine, in Medline. Study selection: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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. en_US
dc.language.iso eng
dc.publisher BMJ Publishing Group
dc.relation.ispartofseries BMJ
dc.rights info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.rights.uri https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.es
dc.subject Humans en_US
dc.subject Review en_US
dc.subject Randomized Controlled Trial (Topic) en_US
dc.subject Methodology en_US
dc.subject Sample Size en_US
dc.subject Statistics en_US
dc.subject Treatment Outcome en_US
dc.subject Randomized Controlled Trials As Topic en_US
dc.subject Research Design en_US
dc.subject Standard en_US
dc.subject Outcome Assessment en_US
dc.subject Systematic Review en_US
dc.subject Observer Variation en_US
dc.subject Evidence Based Medicine en_US
dc.subject Data Interpretation Statistical en_US
dc.subject Mathematical Variable en_US
dc.subject Periodicals As Topic en_US
dc.subject Publication en_US
dc.subject Statistical Analysis en_US
dc.title Credibility of claims of subgroup effects in randomised controlled trials: Systematic review en_US
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/review
dc.identifier.doi https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e1553
dc.subject.ocde https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#3.01.00
dc.relation.issn 1756-1833


Ficheros en el ítem

Ficheros Tamaño Formato Ver

No hay ficheros asociados a este ítem.

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess Excepto si se señala otra cosa, la licencia del ítem se describe como info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess

Buscar en el Repositorio


Listar

Panel de Control

Estadísticas