The credibility of subgroup analyses reported in stroke trials is low: A systematic review

Author:

Ademola Ayoola1ORCID,Thabane Lehana2,Adekanye Joel1,Okikiolu Ayooluwanimi3,Babatunde Samuel4,Almekhlafi Mohammed A3,Menon Bijoy K13,Hill Michael D13ORCID,Hildebrand Kevin A5,Sajobi Tolulope T1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Community Health Sciences and O’Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

2. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

3. Department Clinical Neurosciences and Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

4. Office of Institutional Analysis, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

5. Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

Abstract

Background: Subgroup analyses are widely used to evaluate the heterogeneity of treatment effects in randomized clinical trials. However, there is a limited investigation of the quality of prespecified and reported subgroup analyses in stroke trials. This study evaluated the credibility of subgroup analyses in stroke trials. Methods and analysis: We searched Medline/PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Web of Science from inception to 24 March 2021. Three reviewers screened, extracted, and analyzed the data from the publications. Primary publications of stroke trials that reported at least one subgroup effect and had published corresponding study protocols were included. The Instrument for Assessing the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) was used to examine the quality of the subgroup effects reported, with each subgroup effect assigned a credibility rating ranging from very low to high. Subgroup effects with two or more “definitely no” responses received a low credibility rating. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials version 2. Results: Seventy-four articles met the inclusion criteria and reported a combined total of 647 subgroup effects. The median sample size was 1264 (interquartile range (IQR): 380–3876), and the median number of subgroups prespecified in the protocol was 6 (IQR: 2–10). Sixty-one (82%) studies used the univariate test of interaction. Of the total 647 subgroup effects reported in these studies, 319 (49%) were reported in acute stroke trials, while 423 (65%) had low credibility. Conclusion: The quality of subgroup analysis reporting in stroke trials remains poor. More effort is needed to train trialists on the best methods for designing and performing subgroup analyses, and how to report the results. Trial registration number: We prospectively registered the review with International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (registration number: CRD42020223133)

Funder

u.s. army medical research acquisition activity

Alberta Graduate Excellence Scholarship from the University of Calgary

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Neurology,Neurology (clinical)

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. December highlights;International Journal of Stroke;2023-11-24

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3