Development of the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses
- PMID: 32778601
- PMCID: PMC7829020
- 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
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.
© 2020 Joule Inc. or its licensors.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests: None declared.
Comment in
-
VA-ECMO for infarct-related cardiogenic shock.Lancet. 2024 Jun 8;403(10443):2487. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00951-6. Lancet. 2024. PMID: 38851288 No abstract available.
References
-
- 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
-
- 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
-
- 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
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical