Cargando…

The quality of subgroup analyses in chronic pain randomized controlled trials: a methodological review

The quality of subgroup analyses (SGAs) in chronic non-cancer pain trials is uncertain. The purpose of this study was to address this issue. We conducted a comprehensive search in MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 2012 to September 2018 to identify eligible trials. Two pairs of reviewers assessed the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: AminiLari, Mahmood, Ashoorian, Vahid, Caldwell, Alexa, Rahman, Yasir, Nieuwlaat, Robby, Busse, Jason W., Mbuagbaw, Lawrence
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Pain Society 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8019964/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33785666
http://dx.doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2021.34.2.139
_version_ 1783674487822090240
author AminiLari, Mahmood
Ashoorian, Vahid
Caldwell, Alexa
Rahman, Yasir
Nieuwlaat, Robby
Busse, Jason W.
Mbuagbaw, Lawrence
author_facet AminiLari, Mahmood
Ashoorian, Vahid
Caldwell, Alexa
Rahman, Yasir
Nieuwlaat, Robby
Busse, Jason W.
Mbuagbaw, Lawrence
author_sort AminiLari, Mahmood
collection PubMed
description The quality of subgroup analyses (SGAs) in chronic non-cancer pain trials is uncertain. The purpose of this study was to address this issue. We conducted a comprehensive search in MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 2012 to September 2018 to identify eligible trials. Two pairs of reviewers assessed the quality of the SGAs and the credibility of subgroup claims using the 10 criteria developed by Sun et al. in 2012. The associations between the quality of the SGAs and the studies’ characteristics including risk of bias, funding sources, sample size, and the latest impact factor, were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Our search retrieved 3,401 articles of which 66 were eligible. The total number of SGAs was 177 of which 52 (29.4%) made a subgroup claim. Of these, only 15 (8.5%) were evaluated as being of high quality. Among the 30 SGAs that claimed subgroup effects using an appropriate method of performing interaction tests, the credibility of only 5 were assessed as high. None of the subgroup claims met all the credibility criteria. No significant association was found between the quality of SGAs and the studies’ characteristics. The quality of the SGAs performed in chronic pain trials was poor. To enhance the quality of SGAs, scholars should consider the developed criteria when designing and conducting trials, particularly those which need to be specified a priori.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8019964
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher The Korean Pain Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80199642021-04-13 The quality of subgroup analyses in chronic pain randomized controlled trials: a methodological review AminiLari, Mahmood Ashoorian, Vahid Caldwell, Alexa Rahman, Yasir Nieuwlaat, Robby Busse, Jason W. Mbuagbaw, Lawrence Korean J Pain Review Article The quality of subgroup analyses (SGAs) in chronic non-cancer pain trials is uncertain. The purpose of this study was to address this issue. We conducted a comprehensive search in MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 2012 to September 2018 to identify eligible trials. Two pairs of reviewers assessed the quality of the SGAs and the credibility of subgroup claims using the 10 criteria developed by Sun et al. in 2012. The associations between the quality of the SGAs and the studies’ characteristics including risk of bias, funding sources, sample size, and the latest impact factor, were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Our search retrieved 3,401 articles of which 66 were eligible. The total number of SGAs was 177 of which 52 (29.4%) made a subgroup claim. Of these, only 15 (8.5%) were evaluated as being of high quality. Among the 30 SGAs that claimed subgroup effects using an appropriate method of performing interaction tests, the credibility of only 5 were assessed as high. None of the subgroup claims met all the credibility criteria. No significant association was found between the quality of SGAs and the studies’ characteristics. The quality of the SGAs performed in chronic pain trials was poor. To enhance the quality of SGAs, scholars should consider the developed criteria when designing and conducting trials, particularly those which need to be specified a priori. The Korean Pain Society 2021-04-01 2021-04-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8019964/ /pubmed/33785666 http://dx.doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2021.34.2.139 Text en © The Korean Pain Society, 2021 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review Article
AminiLari, Mahmood
Ashoorian, Vahid
Caldwell, Alexa
Rahman, Yasir
Nieuwlaat, Robby
Busse, Jason W.
Mbuagbaw, Lawrence
The quality of subgroup analyses in chronic pain randomized controlled trials: a methodological review
title The quality of subgroup analyses in chronic pain randomized controlled trials: a methodological review
title_full The quality of subgroup analyses in chronic pain randomized controlled trials: a methodological review
title_fullStr The quality of subgroup analyses in chronic pain randomized controlled trials: a methodological review
title_full_unstemmed The quality of subgroup analyses in chronic pain randomized controlled trials: a methodological review
title_short The quality of subgroup analyses in chronic pain randomized controlled trials: a methodological review
title_sort quality of subgroup analyses in chronic pain randomized controlled trials: a methodological review
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8019964/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33785666
http://dx.doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2021.34.2.139
work_keys_str_mv AT aminilarimahmood thequalityofsubgroupanalysesinchronicpainrandomizedcontrolledtrialsamethodologicalreview
AT ashoorianvahid thequalityofsubgroupanalysesinchronicpainrandomizedcontrolledtrialsamethodologicalreview
AT caldwellalexa thequalityofsubgroupanalysesinchronicpainrandomizedcontrolledtrialsamethodologicalreview
AT rahmanyasir thequalityofsubgroupanalysesinchronicpainrandomizedcontrolledtrialsamethodologicalreview
AT nieuwlaatrobby thequalityofsubgroupanalysesinchronicpainrandomizedcontrolledtrialsamethodologicalreview
AT bussejasonw thequalityofsubgroupanalysesinchronicpainrandomizedcontrolledtrialsamethodologicalreview
AT mbuagbawlawrence thequalityofsubgroupanalysesinchronicpainrandomizedcontrolledtrialsamethodologicalreview
AT aminilarimahmood qualityofsubgroupanalysesinchronicpainrandomizedcontrolledtrialsamethodologicalreview
AT ashoorianvahid qualityofsubgroupanalysesinchronicpainrandomizedcontrolledtrialsamethodologicalreview
AT caldwellalexa qualityofsubgroupanalysesinchronicpainrandomizedcontrolledtrialsamethodologicalreview
AT rahmanyasir qualityofsubgroupanalysesinchronicpainrandomizedcontrolledtrialsamethodologicalreview
AT nieuwlaatrobby qualityofsubgroupanalysesinchronicpainrandomizedcontrolledtrialsamethodologicalreview
AT bussejasonw qualityofsubgroupanalysesinchronicpainrandomizedcontrolledtrialsamethodologicalreview
AT mbuagbawlawrence qualityofsubgroupanalysesinchronicpainrandomizedcontrolledtrialsamethodologicalreview