Debate: Subgroup analyses in clinical trials: fun to look at - but don't believe them! - PubMed (original) (raw)

Debate: Subgroup analyses in clinical trials: fun to look at - but don't believe them!

Peter Sleight. Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med. 2000.

Abstract

Analysis of subgroup results in a clinical trial is surprisingly unreliable, even in a large trial. This is the result of a combination of reduced statistical power, increased variance and the play of chance. Reliance on such analyses is likely to be more erroneous, and hence harmful, than application of the overall proportional (or relative) result in the whole trial to the estimate of absolute risk in that subgroup. Plausible explanations can usually be found for effects that are, in reality, simply due to the play of chance. When clinicians believe such subgroup analyses, there is a real danger of harm to the individual patient.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: quantifying the risks of false-positives and false-negatives.
  Brookes ST, Whitley E, Peters TJ, Mulheran PA, Egger M, Davey Smith G. Brookes ST, et al. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(33):1-56. doi: 10.3310/hta5330. Health Technol Assess. 2001. PMID: 11701102 Review.
• DICE 2: a further investigation of the effects of chance in life, death and subgroup analyses.
  Clarke M, Halsey J. Clarke M, et al. Int J Clin Pract. 2001 May;55(4):240-2. Int J Clin Pract. 2001. PMID: 11406908
• Estimates of subgroup treatment effects in overall nonsignificant trials: To what extent should we believe in them?
  Tanniou J, van der Tweel I, Teerenstra S, Roes KCB. Tanniou J, et al. Pharm Stat. 2017 Jul;16(4):280-295. doi: 10.1002/pst.1810. Epub 2017 May 15. Pharm Stat. 2017. PMID: 28503861
• Challenges of subgroup analyses in multinational clinical trials: experiences from the MERIT-HF trial.
  Wedel H, Demets D, Deedwania P, Fagerberg B, Goldstein S, Gottlieb S, Hjalmarson A, Kjekshus J, Waagstein F, Wikstrand J; MERIT-HF Study Group. Wedel H, et al. Am Heart J. 2001 Sep;142(3):502-11. doi: 10.1067/mhj.2001.117600. Am Heart J. 2001. PMID: 11526365 Clinical Trial.
• Application of Clinical Trial Results to Clinical Practice.
  Zarbin MA, Bhagat N, Mukkamala LK. Zarbin MA, et al. Dev Ophthalmol. 2017;60:175-189. doi: 10.1159/000459707. Epub 2017 Apr 20. Dev Ophthalmol. 2017. PMID: 28427076 Review.

Cited by

• Maternal education preferences moderate the effects of mandatory employment and education programs on child positive and problem behaviors.
  Gassman-Pines A, Godfrey EB, Yoshikawa H. Gassman-Pines A, et al. Child Dev. 2013 Jan-Feb;84(1):198-208. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01832.x. Epub 2012 Aug 3. Child Dev. 2013. PMID: 22861169 Free PMC article.
• Clinical review: molecular mechanisms underlying the role of antithrombin in sepsis.
  Wiedermann CJ. Wiedermann CJ. Crit Care. 2006 Feb;10(1):209. doi: 10.1186/cc4822. Crit Care. 2006. PMID: 16542481 Free PMC article. Review.
• Implications for paediatric shock management in resource-limited settings: a perspective from the FEAST trial.
  Houston KA, George EC, Maitland K. Houston KA, et al. Crit Care. 2018 May 4;22(1):119. doi: 10.1186/s13054-018-1966-4. Crit Care. 2018. PMID: 29728116 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
• The value of extended glioblastoma resection: Insights from randomized controlled trials.
  Gonda DD, Warnke P, Sanai N, Taich Z, Kasper EM, Chen CC. Gonda DD, et al. Surg Neurol Int. 2013 Aug 28;4:110. doi: 10.4103/2152-7806.117173. eCollection 2013. Surg Neurol Int. 2013. PMID: 24032085 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
• The credibility of subgroup analyses reported in stroke trials is low: A systematic review.
  Ademola A, Thabane L, Adekanye J, Okikiolu A, Babatunde S, Almekhlafi MA, Menon BK, Hill MD, Hildebrand KA, Sajobi TT. Ademola A, et al. Int J Stroke. 2023 Dec;18(10):1161-1168. doi: 10.1177/17474930231168517. Epub 2023 May 2. Int J Stroke. 2023. PMID: 36988330 Free PMC article.

References

1. 1. Collins R, Peto R, Gray R, Parish S. Large-scale randomized evidence: trials and overviews. Oxford Textbook of Medicine, edn 3. Edited by Weatherall DJ, Ledingham JGG, Warrell DA. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1996. pp. 21–32.
2. 1. Hansson L, Lindholm LH, Niskanen L, Lanke J, Hedner T, Niklason A, Luomanmaki K, Dahlof B, de Faire U, Morlin C, Karlberg BE, Wester PO, Bjorck JE. Effect of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition compared with conventional therapy on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the Captopril Prevention Project (CAPPP) randomised trial. . Lancet. 1999;353:611–616. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)05012-0. - DOI - PubMed
3. 1. ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group Randomised trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both or neither among 17,187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. Lancet. 1988;ii:349–360. - PubMed
4. 1. The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators Effects of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:145–153. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200001203420301. - DOI - PubMed
5. 1. Fibrinolytic Therapy Trialists' (FTT) Collaborative Group Indications for fibrinolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction: collaborative overview of mortality and major morbidity results from all randomised trials of more than 1000 patients. Lancet . 1994;343:311–322. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(94)91161-4. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources

• Full Text Sources

  • BioMed Central
  • Europe PubMed Central
  • PubMed Central