Cargando…

Exploring Treatment by Covariate Interactions Using Subgroup Analysis and Meta-Regression in Cochrane Reviews: A Review of Recent Practice

BACKGROUND: Treatment by covariate interactions can be explored in reviews using interaction analyses (e.g., subgroup analysis). Such analyses can provide information on how the covariate modifies the treatment effect and is an important methodological approach for personalising medicine. Guidance e...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Donegan, Sarah, Williams, Lisa, Dias, Sofia, Tudur-Smith, Catrin, Welton, Nicky
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4452239/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26029923
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128804
_version_ 1782374272812974080
author Donegan, Sarah
Williams, Lisa
Dias, Sofia
Tudur-Smith, Catrin
Welton, Nicky
author_facet Donegan, Sarah
Williams, Lisa
Dias, Sofia
Tudur-Smith, Catrin
Welton, Nicky
author_sort Donegan, Sarah
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Treatment by covariate interactions can be explored in reviews using interaction analyses (e.g., subgroup analysis). Such analyses can provide information on how the covariate modifies the treatment effect and is an important methodological approach for personalising medicine. Guidance exists regarding how to apply such analyses but little is known about whether authors follow the guidance. METHODS: Using published recommendations, we developed criteria to assess how well interaction analyses were designed, applied, interpreted, and reported. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched (8th August 2013). We applied the criteria to the most recently published review, with an accessible protocol, for each Cochrane Review Group. We excluded review updates, diagnostic test accuracy reviews, withdrawn reviews, and overviews of reviews. Data were summarised regarding reviews, covariates, and analyses. RESULTS: Each of the 52 included reviews planned or did interaction analyses; 51 reviews (98%) planned analyses and 33 reviews (63%) applied analyses. The type of analysis planned and the type subsequently applied (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analysis) was discrepant in 24 reviews (46%). No review reported how or why each covariate had been chosen; 22 reviews (42%) did state each covariate a priori in the protocol but no review identified each post-hoc covariate as such. Eleven reviews (21%) mentioned five covariates or less. One review reported planning to use a method to detect interactions (i.e., interaction test) for each covariate; another review reported applying the method for each covariate. Regarding interpretation, only one review reported whether an interaction was detected for each covariate and no review discussed the importance, or plausibility, of the results, or the possibility of confounding for each covariate. CONCLUSIONS: Interaction analyses in Cochrane Reviews can be substantially improved. The proposed criteria can be used to help guide the reporting and conduct of analyses.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4452239
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44522392015-06-09 Exploring Treatment by Covariate Interactions Using Subgroup Analysis and Meta-Regression in Cochrane Reviews: A Review of Recent Practice Donegan, Sarah Williams, Lisa Dias, Sofia Tudur-Smith, Catrin Welton, Nicky PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Treatment by covariate interactions can be explored in reviews using interaction analyses (e.g., subgroup analysis). Such analyses can provide information on how the covariate modifies the treatment effect and is an important methodological approach for personalising medicine. Guidance exists regarding how to apply such analyses but little is known about whether authors follow the guidance. METHODS: Using published recommendations, we developed criteria to assess how well interaction analyses were designed, applied, interpreted, and reported. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched (8th August 2013). We applied the criteria to the most recently published review, with an accessible protocol, for each Cochrane Review Group. We excluded review updates, diagnostic test accuracy reviews, withdrawn reviews, and overviews of reviews. Data were summarised regarding reviews, covariates, and analyses. RESULTS: Each of the 52 included reviews planned or did interaction analyses; 51 reviews (98%) planned analyses and 33 reviews (63%) applied analyses. The type of analysis planned and the type subsequently applied (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analysis) was discrepant in 24 reviews (46%). No review reported how or why each covariate had been chosen; 22 reviews (42%) did state each covariate a priori in the protocol but no review identified each post-hoc covariate as such. Eleven reviews (21%) mentioned five covariates or less. One review reported planning to use a method to detect interactions (i.e., interaction test) for each covariate; another review reported applying the method for each covariate. Regarding interpretation, only one review reported whether an interaction was detected for each covariate and no review discussed the importance, or plausibility, of the results, or the possibility of confounding for each covariate. CONCLUSIONS: Interaction analyses in Cochrane Reviews can be substantially improved. The proposed criteria can be used to help guide the reporting and conduct of analyses. Public Library of Science 2015-06-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4452239/ /pubmed/26029923 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128804 Text en © 2015 Donegan et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Donegan, Sarah
Williams, Lisa
Dias, Sofia
Tudur-Smith, Catrin
Welton, Nicky
Exploring Treatment by Covariate Interactions Using Subgroup Analysis and Meta-Regression in Cochrane Reviews: A Review of Recent Practice
title Exploring Treatment by Covariate Interactions Using Subgroup Analysis and Meta-Regression in Cochrane Reviews: A Review of Recent Practice
title_full Exploring Treatment by Covariate Interactions Using Subgroup Analysis and Meta-Regression in Cochrane Reviews: A Review of Recent Practice
title_fullStr Exploring Treatment by Covariate Interactions Using Subgroup Analysis and Meta-Regression in Cochrane Reviews: A Review of Recent Practice
title_full_unstemmed Exploring Treatment by Covariate Interactions Using Subgroup Analysis and Meta-Regression in Cochrane Reviews: A Review of Recent Practice
title_short Exploring Treatment by Covariate Interactions Using Subgroup Analysis and Meta-Regression in Cochrane Reviews: A Review of Recent Practice
title_sort exploring treatment by covariate interactions using subgroup analysis and meta-regression in cochrane reviews: a review of recent practice
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4452239/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26029923
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128804
work_keys_str_mv AT donegansarah exploringtreatmentbycovariateinteractionsusingsubgroupanalysisandmetaregressionincochranereviewsareviewofrecentpractice
AT williamslisa exploringtreatmentbycovariateinteractionsusingsubgroupanalysisandmetaregressionincochranereviewsareviewofrecentpractice
AT diassofia exploringtreatmentbycovariateinteractionsusingsubgroupanalysisandmetaregressionincochranereviewsareviewofrecentpractice
AT tudursmithcatrin exploringtreatmentbycovariateinteractionsusingsubgroupanalysisandmetaregressionincochranereviewsareviewofrecentpractice
AT weltonnicky exploringtreatmentbycovariateinteractionsusingsubgroupanalysisandmetaregressionincochranereviewsareviewofrecentpractice