dc.date.accessioned2022-01-18T19:26:54Z
dc.date.available2022-01-18T19:26:54Z
dc.date.created2022-01-18T19:26:54Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifierhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12866/11002
dc.identifierhttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e1553
dc.description.abstractObjective: 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.
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Group
dc.relationBMJ
dc.relation1756-1833
dc.rightshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.es
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectReview
dc.subjectRandomized Controlled Trial (Topic)
dc.subjectMethodology
dc.subjectSample Size
dc.subjectStatistics
dc.subjectTreatment Outcome
dc.subjectRandomized Controlled Trials As Topic
dc.subjectResearch Design
dc.subjectStandard
dc.subjectOutcome Assessment
dc.subjectSystematic Review
dc.subjectObserver Variation
dc.subjectEvidence Based Medicine
dc.subjectData Interpretation Statistical
dc.subjectMathematical Variable
dc.subjectPeriodicals As Topic
dc.subjectPublication
dc.subjectStatistical Analysis
dc.titleCredibility of claims of subgroup effects in randomised controlled trials: Systematic review
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/review


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución