医学
子群分析
虚假关系
梅德林
家庭医学
统计
病理
荟萃分析
数学
政治学
法学
作者
Xin Sun,John P. A. Ioannidis,Thomas Agoritsas,Ana Carolina Alba,Gordon Guyatt
出处
期刊:JAMA
[American Medical Association]
日期:2014-01-21
卷期号:311 (4): 405-405
被引量:392
标识
DOI:10.1001/jama.2013.285063
摘要
Clinicians, when trying to apply trial results to patient care, need to individualize patient care and, potentially, manage patients based on results of subgroup analyses. Apparently compelling subgroup effects often prove spurious, and guidance is needed to differentiate credible from less credible subgroup claims. We therefore provide 5 criteria to use when assessing the validity of subgroup analyses: (1) Can chance explain the apparent subgroup effect; (2) Is the effect consistent across studies; (3) Was the subgroup hypothesis one of a small number of hypotheses developed a priori with direction specified; (4) Is there strong preexisting biological support; and (5) Is the evidence supporting the effect based on within- or between-study comparisons. The first 4 criteria are applicable to individual studies or systematic reviews, the last only to systematic reviews of multiple studies. These criteria will help clinicians deciding whether to use subgroup analyses to guide their patient care.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI