CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 131Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 98 of the 99 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Subgroup analyses in therapeutic cardiovascular clinical trials: Are most of them misleading?

Hernández, Adrián V., Boersma, Eric, Murray, Gordon D., Habbema, J. Dik F., Steyerberg, Ewout W.·2006·American Heart Journal
DOI 10.1016/j.ahj.2005.04.020
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Treatment decisions in clinical cardiology are directed by results from randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We studied the appropriateness of the use and interpretation of subgroup analysis in current therapeutic cardiovascular RCTs.Methods We reviewed main reports of phase 3 cardiovascular RCTs with at least 100 patients, published in 2002 and 2004, and from major journals (Circulation, J Am Coll Cardiol, Am Heart J, Am J Cardiol, N Engl J Med, Lancet, JAMA, BMJ, Ann Intern Med). Information on subgroups included prespecification, number, interaction test use, significant subgroups found, and emphasis on findings. We examined appropriateness of reporting and differences according to sample size, overall trial result, and CONSORT adoption.Results We selected 63 RCTs, with a median of 496 (range 100-15,245) patients. Thirty-nine RCTs were reported with subgroup analyses and 26 with > 5 subgroups. No trial was specifically powered to detect subgroup effects, and only 14 RCTs were reported with fully prespecified subgroups. Only 11 RCTs were reported with interaction tests. Furthermore, 21 RCTs were reported with claims of significant subgroups and 15 with equal or more emphasis to subgroups than to the overall results. Subgroup analyses in large RCTs (> 500 patients) were reported more often than in small ones (24/30 vs 15/33, P = .005). No differences were found according to overall result (positive/negative) or CONSORT adoption.Conclusions Subgroup analyses in recent cardiovascular RCTs were reported with several shortcomings, including a lack of prespecification and testing of a large number of subgroups without the use of the statistically appropriate test for interaction. Reporting of subgroup analysis needs to be substantially improved because emphasis on these secondary results may mislead treatment decisions.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ahj.2005.04.020

Cites

98 of 98 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 99 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–131 of 131

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hernández, A. V., Boersma, E., Murray, G. D., Habbema, J. D. F., & Steyerberg, E. W.
Affiliations
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Hernández, Adrián V.
ORCID
Venue
American Heart Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-02
Volume
151
Issue
2
Pages
257-264
ISSN
0002-8703 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ahj.2005.04.020
OpenAlex
W1971141955
Cited by
131
References
99
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 13
FWCI
7.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • American Heart Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
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 › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
subgroup analysis, cardiovascular clinical trials, interaction testing, trial reporting quality, CONSORT, sample size, treatment decision-making, publication bias
MeSH terms
Cardiovascular Diseases, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Decision Making, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic, Sample Size

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