A systematic survey identified 36 criteria for assessing effect modification claims in randomized trials or meta-analyses
| Autor: | Yung Lee, Luis E. Colunga Lozano, Tahira Devji, Niveditha Devasenapathy, Michael Walsh, Ying Zhang, Xin Sun, Matthias Briel, Gordon H. Guyatt, Lehana Thabane, Arnav Agarwal, Joey S.W. Kwong, Yaping Chang, Neera Bhatnagar, Hannah Ewald, Stefan Schandelmaier |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2019 |
| Předmět: |
Research Report
medicine.medical_specialty Biomedical Research Epidemiology MEDLINE Subgroup analysis law.invention 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Randomized controlled trial Meta-Analysis as Topic law Credibility medicine Humans 030212 general & internal medicine Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic 3. Good health Stratified sampling Test (assessment) Data Accuracy Critical appraisal Family medicine Psychology Effect modification 030217 neurology & neurosurgery |
| Popis: | Objective The objective of the study was to systematically survey the methodological literature and collect suggested criteria for assessing the credibility of effect modification and associated rationales. Study Design and Setting We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and WorldCat up to March 2018 for publications providing guidance for assessing the credibility of effect modification identified in randomized trials or meta-analyses. Teams of two investigators independently identified eligible publications and extracted credibility criteria and authors’ rationale, reaching consensus through discussion. We created a taxonomy of criteria that we iteratively refined during data abstraction. Results We identified 150 eligible publications that provided 36 criteria and associated rationales. Frequent criteria included significant test for interaction (n = 54), a priori hypothesis (n = 49), providing a causal explanation (n = 47), accounting for multiplicity (n = 45), testing a small number of effect modifiers (n = 38), and prespecification of analytic details (n = 39). For some criteria, we found more than one rationale; some criteria were connected through a common rationale. For some criteria, experts disagreed regarding their suitability (e.g., added value of stratified randomization; trustworthiness of biologic rationales). Conclusion Methodologists have expended substantial intellectual energy providing criteria for critical appraisal of apparent effect modification. Our survey highlights popular criteria, expert agreement and disagreement, and where more work is needed, including testing criteria in practice. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|