Cited by 5Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Evaluation of Planned Subgroup Analysis in Protocols of Randomized Clinical Trials

Open access
Taji Heravi, Ala, Gryaznov, Dmitry, Schandelmaier, Stefan, Kasenda, Benjamin, Briel, Matthias, Adherence to SPIRIT Recommendations (ASPIRE) Study Group, von Niederhäusern, Belinda, Speich, Benjamin +29 more·2021·JAMA Network Open

Abstract

This cross-sectional study compares randomized clinical trial protocols to assess the prevalence and reporting quality of planned subgroup analyses over time.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.31503

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Subgroup analyses are highly susceptible to bias and misinterpretation, particularly if they are inappropriately conducted or selectively reported.

    “Although commonly performed,439 440 subgroup analyses are highly susceptible to bias and misinterpretation, particularly if they are inappropriately conducted or selectively reported.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Taji Heravi, A., Gryaznov, D., Schandelmaier, S., Kasenda, B., Briel, M., Adherence to SPIRIT Recommendations (ASPIRE) Study Group, von Niederhäusern, B., Speich, B., Ojeda-Ruiz, E., Blümle, A., Mertz, D., Odutayo, A., Tomonaga, Y., Amstutz, A., Pauli-Magnus, C., Gloy, V., Lohner, S., Bischoff, K., Wollmann, K., Rehner, L., Meerpohl, J. J., Nordmann, A., Klatte, K., Ghosh, N., McCord, K., Sricharoenchai, S., Busse, J. W., Agarwal, A., Saccilotto, R., Schwenkglenks, M., Moffa, G., Hemkens, L. G., Hopewell, S., von Elm, E., Wong, J., Chow, N., & Jiho Hong, P.
Affiliations
  • Department of Clinical Research, Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
  • University of Basel (CH)
  • for the Adherence to SPIRIT Recommendations (ASPIRE) Study Group
Venue
JAMA Network Open
Published
2021-10-27
Volume
4
Issue
10
Pages
e2131503
ISSN
2574-3805 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3209678742
Cited by
5
References
6
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1
FWCI
0.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JAMA Network Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
subgroup analysis, reporting quality, subgroup effects, temporal trends
MeSH terms
Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Research Design, Switzerland, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review