Cited by 505Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal

Open access
Kent, David M, Rothwell, Peter M, Ioannidis, John PA, Altman, Doug G, Hayward, Rodney A·2010·Trials

Abstract

Mounting evidence suggests that there is frequently considerable variation in the risk of the outcome of interest in clinical trial populations. These differences in risk will often cause clinically important heterogeneity in treatment effects (HTE) across the trial population, such that the balance between treatment risks and benefits may differ substantially between large identifiable patient subgroups; the "average" benefit observed in the summary result may even be non-representative of the treatment effect for a typical patient in the trial. Conventional subgroup analyses, which examine whether specific patient characteristics modify the effects of treatment, are usually unable to detect even large variations in treatment benefit (and harm) across risk groups because they do not account for the fact that patients have multiple characteristics simultaneously that affect the likelihood of treatment benefit. Based upon recent evidence on optimal statistical approaches to assessing HTE, we propose a framework that prioritizes the analysis and reporting of multivariate risk-based HTE and suggests that other subgroup analyses should be explicitly labeled either as primary subgroup analyses (well-motivated by prior evidence and intended to produce clinically actionable results) or secondary (exploratory) subgroup analyses (performed to inform future research). A standardized and transparent approach to HTE assessment and reporting could substantially improve clinical trial utility and interpretability.

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 · 10.1186/1745-6215-11-85

Cites

74 of 74 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?

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
Kent, D. M., Rothwell, P. M., Ioannidis, J. P., Altman, D. G., & Hayward, R. A.
Affiliations
  • Tufts Medical Center (US)
  • John Radcliffe Hospital (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Kent, David M
Venue
Trials
Published
2010-08-12
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
85-85
ISSN
1745-6215 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2128780239
Cited by
504
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 28
FWCI
17.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Trials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Pfizer
  • National Institutes of Health (P60DK20572)
  • Quality Enhancement Research Initiative
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P60DK020572, P60 DK 20572)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS062153)
  • National Center for Research Resources (U54 RR023562)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
treatment effect heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, clinical trial reporting, treatment risks and benefits, risk stratification
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Risk Factors, Therapeutics, Reproducibility of Results, Multivariate Analysis, Risk Assessment, Evidence-Based Medicine

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