Cited by 942Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials: importance, indications, and interpretation

Rothwell, Peter M·2005·The Lancet

Abstract

Large pragmatic trials provide the most reliable data about the effects of treatments, but should be designed, analysed, and reported to enable the most effective use of treatments in routine practice. Subgroup analyses are important if there are potentially large differences between groups in the risk of a poor outcome with or without treatment, if there is potential heterogeneity of treatment effect in relation to pathophysiology, if there are practical questions about when to treat, or if there are doubts about benefit in specific groups, such as elderly people, which are leading to potentially inappropriate undertreatment. Analyses must be predefined, carefully justified, and limited to a few clinically important questions, and post-hoc observations should be treated with scepticism irrespective of their statistical significance. If important subgroup effects are anticipated, trials should either be powered to detect them reliably or pooled analyses of several trials should be undertaken. Formal rules for the planning, analysis, and reporting of subgroup analyses are proposed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(05)17709-5

Cites

134 of 134 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • In RCTs, interaction analysis, if incorrectly tested or misinterpreted, may lead to unnecessary withholding of treatment, ineffective or even harmful treatment effects.

    “Although interaction analysis in RCTs is usually stated as the secondary study objective, if incorrectly tested or misinterpreted, it may lead to unnecessary withholding of treatment, ineffective or even harmful treatment effects.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rothwell, P. M.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Rothwell, Peter M
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-01
Volume
365
Issue
9454
Pages
176-186
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2148173212
Cited by
942
References
134
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 65 · 2016: 66 · 2015: 56 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 50
FWCI
35.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • 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, randomized controlled trials, treatment effect heterogeneity, pragmatic trials, trial design, post hoc analysis, treatment timing, trial power, meta-analysis
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Research Design, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome

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