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
. 2016 Jul 16;17(1):320.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1447-5.

No improvement in the reporting of clinical trial subgroup effects in high-impact general medical journals

Nicole B Gabler  1 , Naihua Duan  2 , Eli Raneses  3 , Leah Suttner  3   4 , Michael Ciarametaro  5 , Elizabeth Cooney  3 , Robert W Dubois  5 , Scott D Halpern  3   6 , Richard L Kravitz  7
Affiliations

No improvement in the reporting of clinical trial subgroup effects in high-impact general medical journals

Nicole B Gabler et al. Trials. .

Abstract

Background: When subgroup analyses are not correctly analyzed and reported, incorrect conclusions may be drawn, and inappropriate treatments provided. Despite the increased recognition of the importance of subgroup analysis, little information exists regarding the prevalence, appropriateness, and study characteristics that influence subgroup analysis. The objective of this study is to determine (1) if the use of subgroup analyses and multivariable risk indices has increased, (2) whether statistical methodology has improved over time, and (3) which study characteristics predict subgroup analysis.

Methods: We randomly selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from five high-impact general medical journals during three time periods. Data from these articles were abstracted in duplicate using standard forms and a standard protocol. Subgroup analysis was defined as reporting any subgroup effect. Appropriate methods for subgroup analysis included a formal test for heterogeneity or interaction across treatment-by-covariate groups. We used logistic regression to determine the variables significantly associated with any subgroup analysis or, among RCTs reporting subgroup analyses, using appropriate methodology.

Results: The final sample of 416 articles reported 437 RCTs, of which 270 (62 %) reported subgroup analysis. Among these, 185 (69 %) used appropriate methods to conduct such analyses. Subgroup analysis was reported in 62, 55, and 67 % of the articles from 2007, 2010, and 2013, respectively. The percentage using appropriate methods decreased over the three time points from 77 % in 2007 to 63 % in 2013 (p < 0.05). Significant predictors of reporting subgroup analysis included industry funding (OR 1.94 (95 % CI 1.17, 3.21)), sample size (OR 1.98 per quintile (1.64, 2.40), and a significant primary outcome (OR 0.55 (0.33, 0.92)). The use of appropriate methods to conduct subgroup analysis decreased by year (OR 0.88 (0.76, 1.00)) and was less common with industry funding (OR 0.35 (0.18, 0.70)). Only 33 (18 %) of the RCTs examined subgroup effects using a multivariable risk index.

Conclusions: While we found no significant increase in the reporting of subgroup analysis over time, our results show a significant decrease in the reporting of subgroup analyses using appropriate methods during recent years. Industry-sponsored trials may more commonly report subgroup analyses, but without utilizing appropriate methods. Suboptimal reporting of subgroup effects may impact optimal physician-patient decision-making.

Keywords: Heterogeneity of treatment effects; Methodology; Multivariable risk index; Randomized controlled trial; Subgroup analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study search and selection flow diagram
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Percentage of trials reporting subgroup analysis utilizing appropriate statistical methods
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kravitz RL, Duan N, Braslow J. Evidence-based medicine, heterogeneity of treatment effects, and the trouble with averages. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):661–87. doi: 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00327.x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kent DM, Rothwell PM, Ioannidis JP, Altman DG, Hayward RA. Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal. Trials. 2010;11:85. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-11-85. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kent DM, Hayward RA. Limitations of applying summary results of clinical trials to individual patients: the need for risk stratification. JAMA. 2007;298(10):1209–12. doi: 10.1001/jama.298.10.1209. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kent DM, Ruthazer R, Selker HP. Are some patients likely to benefit from recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke even beyond 3 hours from symptom onset? Stroke. 2003;34(2):464–7. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000051506.43212.8B. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Furberg CD, Vittinghoff E, Davidson M, Herrington DM, Simon JA, Wenger NK, et al. Subgroup interactions in the Heart and Estrogen/Progestin Replacement Study: lessons learned. Circulation. 2002;105(8):917–22. doi: 10.1161/hc0802.104280. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms