Cargando…

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

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 a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ademola, Ayoola, Thabane, Lehana, Adekanye, Joel, Okikiolu, Ayooluwanimi, Babatunde, Samuel, Almekhlafi, Mohammed A, Menon, Bijoy K, Hill, Michael D, Hildebrand, Kevin A, Sajobi, Tolulope T
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10676048/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36988330
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17474930231168517
_version_ 1785149896904409088
author Ademola, Ayoola
Thabane, Lehana
Adekanye, Joel
Okikiolu, Ayooluwanimi
Babatunde, Samuel
Almekhlafi, Mohammed A
Menon, Bijoy K
Hill, Michael D
Hildebrand, Kevin A
Sajobi, Tolulope T
author_facet Ademola, Ayoola
Thabane, Lehana
Adekanye, Joel
Okikiolu, Ayooluwanimi
Babatunde, Samuel
Almekhlafi, Mohammed A
Menon, Bijoy K
Hill, Michael D
Hildebrand, Kevin A
Sajobi, Tolulope T
author_sort Ademola, Ayoola
collection PubMed
description 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)
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10676048
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106760482023-11-25 The credibility of subgroup analyses reported in stroke trials is low: A systematic review Ademola, Ayoola Thabane, Lehana Adekanye, Joel Okikiolu, Ayooluwanimi Babatunde, Samuel Almekhlafi, Mohammed A Menon, Bijoy K Hill, Michael D Hildebrand, Kevin A Sajobi, Tolulope T Int J Stroke Systematic Review 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) SAGE Publications 2023-05-02 2023-12 /pmc/articles/PMC10676048/ /pubmed/36988330 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17474930231168517 Text en © 2023 World Stroke Organization https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Ademola, Ayoola
Thabane, Lehana
Adekanye, Joel
Okikiolu, Ayooluwanimi
Babatunde, Samuel
Almekhlafi, Mohammed A
Menon, Bijoy K
Hill, Michael D
Hildebrand, Kevin A
Sajobi, Tolulope T
The credibility of subgroup analyses reported in stroke trials is low: A systematic review
title The credibility of subgroup analyses reported in stroke trials is low: A systematic review
title_full The credibility of subgroup analyses reported in stroke trials is low: A systematic review
title_fullStr The credibility of subgroup analyses reported in stroke trials is low: A systematic review
title_full_unstemmed The credibility of subgroup analyses reported in stroke trials is low: A systematic review
title_short The credibility of subgroup analyses reported in stroke trials is low: A systematic review
title_sort credibility of subgroup analyses reported in stroke trials is low: a systematic review
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10676048/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36988330
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17474930231168517
work_keys_str_mv AT ademolaayoola thecredibilityofsubgroupanalysesreportedinstroketrialsislowasystematicreview
AT thabanelehana thecredibilityofsubgroupanalysesreportedinstroketrialsislowasystematicreview
AT adekanyejoel thecredibilityofsubgroupanalysesreportedinstroketrialsislowasystematicreview
AT okikioluayooluwanimi thecredibilityofsubgroupanalysesreportedinstroketrialsislowasystematicreview
AT babatundesamuel thecredibilityofsubgroupanalysesreportedinstroketrialsislowasystematicreview
AT almekhlafimohammeda thecredibilityofsubgroupanalysesreportedinstroketrialsislowasystematicreview
AT menonbijoyk thecredibilityofsubgroupanalysesreportedinstroketrialsislowasystematicreview
AT hillmichaeld thecredibilityofsubgroupanalysesreportedinstroketrialsislowasystematicreview
AT hildebrandkevina thecredibilityofsubgroupanalysesreportedinstroketrialsislowasystematicreview
AT sajobitolulopet thecredibilityofsubgroupanalysesreportedinstroketrialsislowasystematicreview
AT ademolaayoola credibilityofsubgroupanalysesreportedinstroketrialsislowasystematicreview
AT thabanelehana credibilityofsubgroupanalysesreportedinstroketrialsislowasystematicreview
AT adekanyejoel credibilityofsubgroupanalysesreportedinstroketrialsislowasystematicreview
AT okikioluayooluwanimi credibilityofsubgroupanalysesreportedinstroketrialsislowasystematicreview
AT babatundesamuel credibilityofsubgroupanalysesreportedinstroketrialsislowasystematicreview
AT almekhlafimohammeda credibilityofsubgroupanalysesreportedinstroketrialsislowasystematicreview
AT menonbijoyk credibilityofsubgroupanalysesreportedinstroketrialsislowasystematicreview
AT hillmichaeld credibilityofsubgroupanalysesreportedinstroketrialsislowasystematicreview
AT hildebrandkevina credibilityofsubgroupanalysesreportedinstroketrialsislowasystematicreview
AT sajobitolulopet credibilityofsubgroupanalysesreportedinstroketrialsislowasystematicreview