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
. 2020 Aug 10;192(32):E901-E906.
doi: 10.1503/cmaj.200077.

Development of the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses

Affiliations

Development of the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses

Stefan Schandelmaier et al. CMAJ. .

Abstract

Background: Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs examine effect modification (also called a subgroup effect or interaction), in which the effect of an intervention varies by another variable (e.g., age or disease severity). Assessing the credibility of an apparent effect modification presents challenges; therefore, we developed the Instrument for assessing the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN).

Methods: To develop ICEMAN, we established a detailed concept; identified candidate credibility considerations in a systematic survey of the literature; together with experts, performed a consensus study to identify key considerations and develop them into instrument items; and refined the instrument based on feedback from trial investigators, systematic review authors and journal editors, who applied drafts of ICEMAN to published claims of effect modification.

Results: The final instrument consists of a set of preliminary considerations, core questions (5 for RCTs, 8 for meta-analyses) with 4 response options, 1 optional item for additional considerations and a rating of credibility on a visual analogue scale ranging from very low to high. An accompanying manual provides rationales, detailed instructions and examples from the literature. Seventeen potential users tested ICEMAN; their suggestions improved the user-friendliness of the instrument.

Interpretation: The Instrument for assessing the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses offers explicit guidance for investigators, systematic reviewers, journal editors and others considering making a claim of effect modification or interpreting a claim made by others.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Comment in

References

    1. Schuit E, Li AH, Ioannidis JPA. How often can meta-analyses of individual-level data individualize treatment? A meta-epidemiologic study. Int J Epidemiol 2019;48:596–608. - PubMed
    1. Gabler NB, Duan N, Raneses E, et al. No improvement in the reporting of clinical trial subgroup effects in high-impact general medical journals. Trials 2016; 17:320. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Simmonds M, Stewart G, Stewart L. A decade of individual participant data meta-analyses: a review of current practice. Contemp Clin Trials 2015;45:76–83. - PubMed
    1. Zhang S, Liang F, Li W, et al. Subgroup analyses in reporting of phase III clinical trials in solid tumors. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:1697–702. - PubMed
    1. Donegan S, Williams L, Dias S, et al. Exploring treatment by covariate interactions using subgroup analysis and meta-regression in Cochrane reviews: a review of recent practice. PLoS One 2015;10:e0128804. - PMC - PubMed