Age-treatment subgroup analyses in Cochrane intervention reviews: a meta-epidemiological study.

Publisher: BioMed Central Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101190723 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1741-7015 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 17417015 NLM ISO Abbreviation: BMC Med Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: [London] : BioMed Central, 2003-

Data Interpretation, Statistical* ; Research Design*/standards ; Research Design*/statistics & numerical data ; Review Literature as Topic*; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/*statistics & numerical data; Age Distribution ; Age Factors ; Epidemiologic Research Design ; Epidemiologic Studies ; Female ; Humans ; Precision Medicine/methods ; Precision Medicine/statistics & numerical data

Background: There is growing interest in evaluating differences in healthcare interventions across routinely collected demographic characteristics. However, individual subgroup analyses in randomized controlled trials are often not prespecified, adjusted for multiple testing, or conducted using the appropriate statistical test for interaction, and therefore frequently lack credibility. Meta-analyses can be used to examine the validity of potential subgroup differences by collating evidence across trials. Here, we characterize the conduct and clinical translation of age-treatment subgroup analyses in Cochrane reviews.
Methods: For a random sample of 928 Cochrane intervention reviews of randomized trials, we determined how often subgroup analyses of age are reported, how often these analyses have a P < 0.05 from formal interaction testing, how frequently subgroup differences first observed in an individual trial are later corroborated by other trials in the same meta-analysis, and how often statistically significant results are included in commonly used clinical management resources (BMJ Best Practice, UpToDate, Cochrane Clinical Answers, Google Scholar, and Google search).
Results: Among 928 Cochrane intervention reviews, 189 (20.4%) included plans to conduct age-treatment subgroup analyses. The vast majority (162 of 189, 85.7%) of the planned analyses were not conducted, commonly because of insufficient trial data. There were 22 reviews that conducted their planned age-treatment subgroup analyses, and another 3 reviews appeared to perform unplanned age-treatment subgroup analyses. These 25 (25 of 928, 2.7%) reviews conducted a total of 97 age-treatment subgroup analyses, of which 65 analyses (in 20 reviews) had non-overlapping subgroup levels. Among the 65 age-treatment subgroup analyses, 14 (21.5%) did not report any formal interaction testing. Seven (10.8%) reported P < 0.05 from formal age-treatment interaction testing; however, none of these seven analyses were in reviews that discussed the potential biological rationale or clinical significance of the subgroup findings or had results that were included in common clinical practice resources.
Conclusion: Age-treatment subgroup analyses in Cochrane intervention reviews were frequently planned but rarely conducted, and implications of detected interactions were not discussed in the reviews or mentioned in common clinical resources. When subgroup analyses are performed, authors should report the findings, compare the results to previous studies, and outline any potential impact on clinical care.

JAMA. 1998 Oct 7;280(13):1168-72. (PMID: 9777817)
Stat Med. 2002 Oct 15;21(19):2917-30. (PMID: 12325108)
N Engl J Med. 2015 Feb 26;372(9):793-5. (PMID: 25635347)
Lancet. 2005 Jan 8-14;365(9454):176-86. (PMID: 15639301)
N Engl J Med. 2010 Jul 22;363(4):301-4. (PMID: 20551152)
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Jan 10;18(1):7. (PMID: 29321002)
BMJ. 2016 Nov 24;355:i5826. (PMID: 27884869)
BMC Health Serv Res. 2002;2:3. (PMID: 11882257)
N Engl J Med. 1987 Aug 13;317(7):426-32. (PMID: 3614286)
Pediatrics. 2012 Jun;129 Suppl 3:S153-60. (PMID: 22661762)
Trials. 2010 Aug 12;11:85. (PMID: 20704705)
Pediatrics. 2012 Jun;129 Suppl 3:S161-84. (PMID: 22661763)
Int J Epidemiol. 2019 Apr 1;48(2):596-608. (PMID: 30445577)
J Pediatr. 2010 Aug;157(2):322-330.e17. (PMID: 20434730)
Chest. 2009 Jul;136(1):295-303. (PMID: 19584212)
Eur Heart J. 2014 Dec 14;35(47):3336-45. (PMID: 25416325)
BMC Med. 2016 Dec 15;14(1):197. (PMID: 27974045)
BMJ. 2018 Dec 10;363:k4245. (PMID: 30530757)
Lancet. 2000 Mar 25;355(9209):1064-9. (PMID: 10744093)
BMJ. 2012 Mar 15;344:e1553. (PMID: 22422832)
Trials. 2016 Apr 14;17:199. (PMID: 27079511)
JAMA. 2014 Jan 22-29;311(4):405-11. (PMID: 24449319)
Ann Intern Med. 1992 Jan 1;116(1):78-84. (PMID: 1530753)
Pediatrics. 2011 Nov;128(5):e1242-9. (PMID: 22025597)
BMJ. 2017 Nov 23;359:j5085. (PMID: 29170161)
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2001 Sep;91(8):437-42. (PMID: 11574648)
J Clin Oncol. 2015 May 20;33(15):1697-702. (PMID: 25897150)
Med Decis Making. 1998 Jan-Mar;18(1):2-9; discussion 16-8. (PMID: 9456200)
JAMA. 2018 Apr 10;319(14):1429-1430. (PMID: 29566133)
N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 22;357(21):2189-94. (PMID: 18032770)
J Med Libr Assoc. 2015 Oct;103(4):184-8. (PMID: 26512216)
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Oct 17;(4):CD002310. (PMID: 17943772)
BMJ. 2000 Jul 1;321(7252):13-7. (PMID: 10875825)
BMJ. 2010 Mar 30;340:c117. (PMID: 20354011)
Int J Equity Health. 2017 Dec 2;16(1):208. (PMID: 29197403)
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(4):CD003271. (PMID: 11687182)
JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Apr 1;177(4):554-560. (PMID: 28192563)
Diabetes Care. 2011 Jul;34(7):1511-3. (PMID: 21593301)
Prev Sci. 2013 Apr;14(2):134-43. (PMID: 23479191)
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Dec;104:143-144. (PMID: 30138701)

UL1 TR001863 United States TR NCATS NIH HHS

Keywords: Age subgroups; Heterogeneity of treatment effects; Precision medicine; Subgroup analyses

Date Created: 20191023 Date Completed: 20200114 Latest Revision: 20200327

20240104

PMC6805640

10.1186/s12916-019-1420-8

31639007