Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2014;16(10):531.
doi: 10.1007/s11886-014-0531-2.

Challenges and solutions to pre- and post-randomization subgroup analyses

Affiliations
Review

Challenges and solutions to pre- and post-randomization subgroup analyses

Manisha Desai et al. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2014.

Abstract

Subgroup analyses are commonly performed in the clinical trial setting with the purpose of illustrating that the treatment effect was consistent across different patient characteristics or identifying characteristics that should be targeted for treatment. There are statistical issues involved in performing subgroup analyses, however. These have been given considerable attention in the literature for analyses where subgroups are defined by a pre-randomization feature. Although subgroup analyses are often performed with subgroups defined by a post-randomization feature--including analyses that estimate the treatment effect among compliers--discussion of these analyses has been neglected in the clinical literature. Such analyses pose a high risk of presenting biased descriptions of treatment effects. We summarize the challenges of doing all types of subgroup analyses described in the literature. In particular, we emphasize issues with post-randomization subgroup analyses. Finally, we provide guidelines on how to proceed across the spectrum of subgroup analyses.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Manisha Desai and Karen S. Pieper declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ken Mahaffey reports grants and personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, grants from Regeneron, grants and personal fees from Cubist Pharmaceuticals, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, grants from Baxter, grants from Roche Diagnostics, grants from Ikaria, grants from Amgen, grants from Regado, grants and personal fees from Merck, grants and personal fees from Glaxo Smith Kline, grants from Amylin, grants from Novartis, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants from Portola, grants and personal fees from Eli Lilly, grants from Edwards Lifesciences, grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants from the National Institute of Health, grants from the National Heart, Lung & Blood Institute, grants from the National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases, personal fees from Bayer, personal fees from Biotronik, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees from Gilead Sciences, personal fees from Medtronic, personal fees from Ortho/McNeill, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from St. Jude, personal fees from ACC, personal fees from John Hopkins University, personal fees from South East Area Health Education Center, personal fees from Sun Pharma, grants and personal fees from Bristol Myers-Squibb, personal fees from the Duke Center for Educational Excellence, personal fees from the University of British Columbia, personal fees from WebMD, personal fees from Perdue Pharma, personal fees from Dialogues, personal fees from Springer Publishing, personal fees from Haemonetics, personal fees from Forest, personal fees from Amgen, and personal fees from Elsevier. He also reports other relationships: www.dcri.org and www.med.stanford.edu/profiles/.

References

    1. Hirji KF, Fagerland MW. Outcome based subgroup analysis: a neglected concern. Trials. 2009;10:33. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-10-33. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pocock SJ, Hughs MD, Lee RJ. Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1987;317(7):426–32. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198708133170706. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Parker AB, Naylor CD. Subgroups, treatment effects, and baseline risks: some lessons from major cardiovascular trials. Am Heart J. 2000;139(6):953–961.4. doi: 10.1067/mhj.2000.106610. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pocock SJ, Travison TG, Wruck LM. Figures in clinical trial reports: current practice & scope for improvement. Trials. 2007;8:36. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-8-36. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Yusuf S, Wittes J, Probstfield J, Tyroler H. Analysis and interpretation of treatment effects in subgroups of patients in randomized clinical trials. JAMA. 1991;266(1):93. doi: 10.1001/jama.1991.03470010097038. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources