Cited by 808Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses

Sun, X., Briel, M., Walter, S. D., Guyatt, G. H.·2010·BMJ

Abstract

How can we tell the difference between spurious and real subgroup effects? This article identifies new criteria and proposes a checklist for judging the credibility of subgroup analyses

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.c117

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • The method for adjusting for confounders when different hypothesized life course associations have different potential confounders does not allow for the potential combination of more than one hypothesized association with different potential confounders.

    “However, this method does not allow for the potential combination of more than one hypothesized association with different potential confounders, as may be encountered if effect modification is considered.37”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sun, X., Briel, M., Walter, S. D., & Guyatt, G. H.
Affiliations
  • Sichuan University (CN)
  • University of Basel (CH)
  • McMaster University (CA)
Corresponding author
Guyatt, G. H.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2010-03-30
Volume
340
Issue
mar30 3
Pages
c117-c117
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W1980472079
Cited by
808
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 64 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 74 · 2020: 74 · 2019: 52 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 55 · 2016: 47 · 2015: 44 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 44 · 2012: 38
FWCI
45.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
subgroup analysis, credibility assessment, heterogeneity, checklists, meta-analysis
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Random Allocation, Research Design, 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