MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115878443 · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-10-101

Subgroup Analysis of Trials Is Rarely Easy (SATIRE): a study protocol for a systematic review to characterize the analysis, reporting, and claim of subgroup effects in randomized trials

2009· review· en· W2115878443 on OpenAlexafffund
Xin Sun, Matthias Briel, Jason W. Busse, Elie A. Akl, John J. You, Filip Mejza, Małgorzata M Bała, Natalia Diaz-Granados, Dirk Bassler, Dominik Mertz, Sadeesh Srinathan, Per Olav Vandvik, Germán Málaga, Mohamad Alshurafa, Philipp Dahm, Pablo Alonso‐Coello, Diane Heels‐Ansdell, Neera Bhatnagar, Bradley C. Johnston, Li Wang, Stephen D. Walter, Douglas G. Altman, Gordon Guyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaInstitute for Work & HealthMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSubgroup analysisMedicineRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEPsychological interventionFamily medicineClinical trialSystematic reviewMeta-analysisInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Subgroup analyses in randomized trials examine whether effects of interventions differ between subgroups of study populations according to characteristics of patients or interventions. However, findings from subgroup analyses may be misleading, potentially resulting in suboptimal clinical and health decision making. Few studies have investigated the reporting and conduct of subgroup analyses and a number of important questions remain unanswered. The objectives of this study are: 1) to describe the reporting of subgroup analyses and claims of subgroup effects in randomized controlled trials, 2) to assess study characteristics associated with reporting of subgroup analyses and with claims of subgroup effects, and 3) to examine the analysis, and interpretation of subgroup effects for each study's primary outcome. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic review of 464 randomized controlled human trials published in 2007 in the 118 Core Clinical Journals defined by the National Library of Medicine. We will randomly select journal articles, stratified in a 1:1 ratio by higher impact versus lower impact journals. According to 2007 ISI total citations, we consider the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, and BMJ as higher impact journals. Teams of two reviewers will independently screen full texts of reports for eligibility, and abstract data, using standardized, pilot-tested extraction forms. We will conduct univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses to examine the association of pre-specified study characteristics with reporting of subgroup analyses and with claims of subgroup effects for the primary and any other outcomes. DISCUSSION: A clear understanding of subgroup analyses, as currently conducted and reported in published randomized controlled trials, will reveal both strengths and weaknesses of this practice. Our findings will contribute to a set of recommendations to optimize the conduct and reporting of subgroup analyses, and claim and interpretation of subgroup effects in randomized trials.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.946
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.945
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.9460.945
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.3630.089
Bibliometrics0.0080.030
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.864
GPT teacher head0.657
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations63
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207