Reporting on methods of subgroup analysis in clinical trials: a survey of four scientific journals

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Moreira Jr.,E.D.
Data de Publicação: 2001
Outros Autores: Stein,Z., Susser,E.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-879X2001001100011
Resumo: Results of subgroup analysis (SA) reported in randomized clinical trials (RCT) cannot be adequately interpreted without information about the methods used in the study design and the data analysis. Our aim was to show how often inaccurate or incomplete reports occur. First, we selected eight methodological aspects of SA on the basis of their importance to a reader in determining the confidence that should be placed in the author's conclusions regarding such analysis. Then, we reviewed the current practice of reporting these methodological aspects of SA in clinical trials in four leading journals, i.e., the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Lancet, and the American Journal of Public Health. Eight consecutive reports from each journal published after July 1, 1998 were included. Of the 32 trials surveyed, 17 (53%) had at least one SA. Overall, the proportion of RCT reporting a particular methodological aspect ranged from 23 to 94%. Information on whether the SA preceded/followed the analysis was reported in only 7 (41%) of the studies. Of the total possible number of items to be reported, NEJM, JAMA, Lancet and AJPH clearly mentioned 59, 67, 58 and 72%, respectively. We conclude that current reporting of SA in RCT is incomplete and inaccurate. The results of such SA may have harmful effects on treatment recommendations if accepted without judicious scrutiny. We recommend that editors improve the reporting of SA in RCT by giving authors a list of the important items to be reported.
id ABDC-1_0ae1d56576b6d70888a7172d144d6000
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0100-879X2001001100011
network_acronym_str ABDC-1
network_name_str Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
repository_id_str
spelling Reporting on methods of subgroup analysis in clinical trials: a survey of four scientific journalssubgroup analysesrandomized clinical trialsresearch designepidemiological methodseffect modificationResults of subgroup analysis (SA) reported in randomized clinical trials (RCT) cannot be adequately interpreted without information about the methods used in the study design and the data analysis. Our aim was to show how often inaccurate or incomplete reports occur. First, we selected eight methodological aspects of SA on the basis of their importance to a reader in determining the confidence that should be placed in the author's conclusions regarding such analysis. Then, we reviewed the current practice of reporting these methodological aspects of SA in clinical trials in four leading journals, i.e., the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Lancet, and the American Journal of Public Health. Eight consecutive reports from each journal published after July 1, 1998 were included. Of the 32 trials surveyed, 17 (53%) had at least one SA. Overall, the proportion of RCT reporting a particular methodological aspect ranged from 23 to 94%. Information on whether the SA preceded/followed the analysis was reported in only 7 (41%) of the studies. Of the total possible number of items to be reported, NEJM, JAMA, Lancet and AJPH clearly mentioned 59, 67, 58 and 72%, respectively. We conclude that current reporting of SA in RCT is incomplete and inaccurate. The results of such SA may have harmful effects on treatment recommendations if accepted without judicious scrutiny. We recommend that editors improve the reporting of SA in RCT by giving authors a list of the important items to be reported.Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica2001-11-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-879X2001001100011Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research v.34 n.11 2001reponame:Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Researchinstname:Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica (ABDC)instacron:ABDC10.1590/S0100-879X2001001100011info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessMoreira Jr.,E.D.Stein,Z.Susser,E.eng2001-11-07T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0100-879X2001001100011Revistahttps://www.bjournal.org/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpbjournal@terra.com.br||bjournal@terra.com.br1414-431X0100-879Xopendoar:2001-11-07T00:00Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research - Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica (ABDC)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Reporting on methods of subgroup analysis in clinical trials: a survey of four scientific journals
title Reporting on methods of subgroup analysis in clinical trials: a survey of four scientific journals
spellingShingle Reporting on methods of subgroup analysis in clinical trials: a survey of four scientific journals
Moreira Jr.,E.D.
subgroup analyses
randomized clinical trials
research design
epidemiological methods
effect modification
title_short Reporting on methods of subgroup analysis in clinical trials: a survey of four scientific journals
title_full Reporting on methods of subgroup analysis in clinical trials: a survey of four scientific journals
title_fullStr Reporting on methods of subgroup analysis in clinical trials: a survey of four scientific journals
title_full_unstemmed Reporting on methods of subgroup analysis in clinical trials: a survey of four scientific journals
title_sort Reporting on methods of subgroup analysis in clinical trials: a survey of four scientific journals
author Moreira Jr.,E.D.
author_facet Moreira Jr.,E.D.
Stein,Z.
Susser,E.
author_role author
author2 Stein,Z.
Susser,E.
author2_role author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Moreira Jr.,E.D.
Stein,Z.
Susser,E.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv subgroup analyses
randomized clinical trials
research design
epidemiological methods
effect modification
topic subgroup analyses
randomized clinical trials
research design
epidemiological methods
effect modification
description Results of subgroup analysis (SA) reported in randomized clinical trials (RCT) cannot be adequately interpreted without information about the methods used in the study design and the data analysis. Our aim was to show how often inaccurate or incomplete reports occur. First, we selected eight methodological aspects of SA on the basis of their importance to a reader in determining the confidence that should be placed in the author's conclusions regarding such analysis. Then, we reviewed the current practice of reporting these methodological aspects of SA in clinical trials in four leading journals, i.e., the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Lancet, and the American Journal of Public Health. Eight consecutive reports from each journal published after July 1, 1998 were included. Of the 32 trials surveyed, 17 (53%) had at least one SA. Overall, the proportion of RCT reporting a particular methodological aspect ranged from 23 to 94%. Information on whether the SA preceded/followed the analysis was reported in only 7 (41%) of the studies. Of the total possible number of items to be reported, NEJM, JAMA, Lancet and AJPH clearly mentioned 59, 67, 58 and 72%, respectively. We conclude that current reporting of SA in RCT is incomplete and inaccurate. The results of such SA may have harmful effects on treatment recommendations if accepted without judicious scrutiny. We recommend that editors improve the reporting of SA in RCT by giving authors a list of the important items to be reported.
publishDate 2001
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2001-11-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-879X2001001100011
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-879X2001001100011
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S0100-879X2001001100011
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research v.34 n.11 2001
reponame:Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
instname:Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica (ABDC)
instacron:ABDC
instname_str Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica (ABDC)
instacron_str ABDC
institution ABDC
reponame_str Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
collection Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
repository.name.fl_str_mv Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research - Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica (ABDC)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv bjournal@terra.com.br||bjournal@terra.com.br
_version_ 1754302931333545984