The Problem of Subgroup Analyses: An Example from a Trial on Ruptured Intracranial Aneurysms

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Molyneux A,
   2. Kerr R,
   3. Stratton I,
   4. et al

   . International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a randomised trial. Lancet 2002;360:1267–74

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   1. Ryttlefors M,
   2. Enblad P,
   3. Kerr RS,
   4. et al

   . International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling: subgroup analysis of 278 elderly patients. Stroke 2008;39:2720–26.Epub 2008 Jul 31

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   1. Furberg CD,
   2. Byington RP

   . What do subgroup analyses reveal about differential response to beta-blocker therapy? The Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial experience. Circulation 1983;67:I98–101

   PubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Fletcher J

   . Subgroup analyses: how to avoid being misled. BMJ 2007;335:96–97

   FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   1. Oxman AD,
   2. Guyatt GH

   . A consumer's guide to subgroup analyses. Ann Intern Med 1992;116:78–84

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   1. Schulz KF,
   2. Grimes DA

   . Multiplicity in randomised trials. II. Subgroup and interim analyses. Lancet 2005;365:1657–61

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   1. Yusuf S,
   2. Wittes J,
   3. Probstfield J,
   4. et al

   . Analysis and interpretation of treatment effects in subgroups of patients in randomized clinical trials. JAMA 1991;266:93–98

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. 8.↵
   1. Altman DG

   . Critical methodology: clipping vs coiling of ruptured aneurysms. In: Proceedings of the 10th Congress of World Federation of Interventional and Therapeutic Neuroradiology, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; June 29-July 3, 2009
9. 9.↵
   1. Molyneux AJ,
   2. Kerr RS,
   3. Yu LM,
   4. et al

   . International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: A randomised comparison of effects on survival, dependency, seizures, rebleeding, subgroups, and aneurysm occlusion. Lancet 2005;366:809–17

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    1. Pocock SJ,
    2. Hughes MD,
    3. Lee RJ

    . Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials: a survey of three medical journals. N Engl J Med 1987;317:426–32

    PubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    1. Assmann SF,
    2. Pocock SJ,
    3. Enos LE,
    4. et al

    . Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials. Lancet 2000;355:1064–69

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    1. Bhandari M,
    2. Devereaux PJ,
    3. Li P,
    4. et al

    . Misuse of baseline comparison tests and subgroup analyses in surgical trials. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006;447:247–51

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Hernandez AV,
    2. Boersma E,
    3. Murray GD,
    4. et al

    . Subgroup analyses in therapeutic cardiovascular clinical trials: are most of them misleading? Am Heart J 2006;151:257–64

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    1. Wang R,
    2. Lagakos SW,
    3. Ware JH,
    4. et al

    . Statistics in medicine: reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2189–94

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. 15.↵
    1. Sun X,
    2. Briel M,
    3. Busse JW,
    4. et al

    . Subgroup Analysis of Trials Is Rarely Easy (SATIRE): a study protocol for a systematic review to characterize the analysis, reporting, and claim of subgroup effects in randomized trials. Trials 2009;10:101

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Horwitz RI,
    2. Singer BH,
    3. Makuch RW,
    4. et al

    . On reaching the tunnel at the end of the light. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:753–55

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
17. 17.↵
    1. Feinstein AR

    . The problem of cogent subgroups: a clinicostatistical tragedy. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:297–99

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    1. Goldman L,
    2. Feinstein AR

    . Anticoagulants and myocardial infarction: the problems of pooling, drowning, and floating. Ann Intern Med 1979;90:92–94

    PubMedWeb of Science
19. 19.↵
    1. Horwitz RI

    . Complexity and contradiction in clinical trial research. Am J Med 1987;82:498–510

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Guyatt G,
    2. Wyer P,
    3. Ioannidis J

    . When to believe a subgroup analysis. In: User's Guide to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. Chicago:American Medical Association;2008:571–83
21. 21.↵
    1. Altman DG

    . Within-trial variation: a false trail? J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:301–03

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    1. Kent DM,
    2. Rothwell PM,
    3. Ioannidis JPA,
    4. et al

    . Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal. Trials 2010;11:85

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Hernandez AV,
    2. Steyerberg EW,
    3. Taylor GS,
    4. et al

    . Subgroup analysis and covariate adjustment in randomized clinical trials of traumatic brain injury: a systematic review. Neurosurgery. 2005;57:1244–53,discussion 1244–53

    PubMedWeb of Science
24. 24.↵
    1. Bland JM,
    2. Altman DG

    . Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method. BMJ 1995;310:170

    FREE Full Text
25. 25.↵
    1. Naggara O,
    2. Raymond J,
    3. Guilbert F,
    4. et al

    . Critical methodology in neurovascular disease clinical research. I. Analysis by categorizing or dichotomizing continuous variables is inadvisable: an example from the natural history of unruptured aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. In press
26. 26.↵
    1. Lee DC,
    2. Johnson RA,
    3. Bingham JB,
    4. et al

    . Heart failure in outpatients: a randomized trial of digoxin versus placebo. N Engl J Med 1982;306:699–705

    PubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    Reduction in mortality after myocardial infarction with long-term beta-adrenoceptor blockade: multicentre international study— supplementary report. BMJ 1977;2:419–21

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
28. 28.↵
    1. Chan AW,
    2. Hróbjartsson A,
    3. Jørgensen KJ,
    4. et al

    . Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols. BMJ 2008;337:a2299

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
29. 29.↵
    1. Altman DG,
    2. Bland JM

    . Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates. BMJ 2003;326:219

    FREE Full Text
30. 30.↵
    1. Lagakos SW

    . The challenge of subgroup analyses: reporting without distorting. N Engl J Med 2006;354:1667–69

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
31. 31.↵
    1. Sun X,
    2. Briel M,
    3. Walter SD,
    4. et al

    . Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses. BMJ 2010;340:c117

    FREE Full Text