MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149974876 · doi:10.1136/bmj.e1553

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

2012· review· en· W2149974876 on OpenAlexafffund
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, Diane Heels‐Ansdell, Neera Bhatnagar, Douglas G. Altman, Gordon Guyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of ManitobaInstitute for Work & HealthMcMaster University
FundersInstituto de Salud Carlos IIICanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHospital for Sick ChildrenGottfried und Julia Bangerter-Rhyner-StiftungMedizinische Abteilung der Margarete und Walter Lichtenstein-StiftungEuropean CommissionNational Science FoundationCancer Research UKNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsSubgroup analysisMedicineMEDLINERandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisClinical trialSample size determinationCredibilityFamily medicineInternal medicineStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.808
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.711
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.8080.711
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.1900.038
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.803
GPT teacher head0.602
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations384
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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