Cargando…

Debate: Subgroup analyses in clinical trials: fun to look at - but don't believe them!

Analysis of subgroup results in a clinical trial is surprisingly unreliable, even in a large trial. This is the result of a combination of reduced statistical power, increased variance and the play of chance. Reliance on such analyses is likely to be more erroneous, and hence harmful, than applicati...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Sleight, Peter
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2000
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC59592/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11714402
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cvm-1-1-025
_version_ 1782120080331505664
author Sleight, Peter
author_facet Sleight, Peter
author_sort Sleight, Peter
collection PubMed
description Analysis of subgroup results in a clinical trial is surprisingly unreliable, even in a large trial. This is the result of a combination of reduced statistical power, increased variance and the play of chance. Reliance on such analyses is likely to be more erroneous, and hence harmful, than application of the overall proportional (or relative) result in the whole trial to the estimate of absolute risk in that subgroup. Plausible explanations can usually be found for effects that are, in reality, simply due to the play of chance. When clinicians believe such subgroup analyses, there is a real danger of harm to the individual patient.
format Text
id pubmed-59592
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2000
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-595922001-11-06 Debate: Subgroup analyses in clinical trials: fun to look at - but don't believe them! Sleight, Peter Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med Commentary Analysis of subgroup results in a clinical trial is surprisingly unreliable, even in a large trial. This is the result of a combination of reduced statistical power, increased variance and the play of chance. Reliance on such analyses is likely to be more erroneous, and hence harmful, than application of the overall proportional (or relative) result in the whole trial to the estimate of absolute risk in that subgroup. Plausible explanations can usually be found for effects that are, in reality, simply due to the play of chance. When clinicians believe such subgroup analyses, there is a real danger of harm to the individual patient. BioMed Central 2000 2000-07-31 /pmc/articles/PMC59592/ /pubmed/11714402 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cvm-1-1-025 Text en Copyright © 2000 Current Controlled Trials Ltd
spellingShingle Commentary
Sleight, Peter
Debate: Subgroup analyses in clinical trials: fun to look at - but don't believe them!
title Debate: Subgroup analyses in clinical trials: fun to look at - but don't believe them!
title_full Debate: Subgroup analyses in clinical trials: fun to look at - but don't believe them!
title_fullStr Debate: Subgroup analyses in clinical trials: fun to look at - but don't believe them!
title_full_unstemmed Debate: Subgroup analyses in clinical trials: fun to look at - but don't believe them!
title_short Debate: Subgroup analyses in clinical trials: fun to look at - but don't believe them!
title_sort debate: subgroup analyses in clinical trials: fun to look at - but don't believe them!
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC59592/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11714402
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cvm-1-1-025
work_keys_str_mv AT sleightpeter debatesubgroupanalysesinclinicaltrialsfuntolookatbutdontbelievethem