Development of the instrument to assess the credibility of effect modification analyses (ICEMAN) in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses

CMAJ

Volumn 192, Issue 32, 2020, Pages E901-E906

  Schandelmaier, Stefan ^a,b   Briel, Matthias ^a,b   Varadhan, Ravi ^c   Schmid, Christopher H ^d   Devasenapathy, Niveditha ^e   Hayward, Rodney A ^f   Gagnier, Joel ^f,g   Borenstein, Michael ^h   van der Heijden, Geert J M G ^i,j   Dahabreh, Issa J ^d   Sun, Xin ^k   Sauerbrei, Willi ^l   Walsh, Michael ^a   Ioannidis, John P A ^m,n   Thabane, Lehana ^a,o   Guyatt, Gordon H ^a  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL BASEL   (Switzerland)

^c JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e PUBLIC HEALTH FOUNDATION OF INDIA   (India)

^f UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^h Biostat Inc   (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^j VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^k SICHUAN UNIVERSITY   (China)

^l UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^m STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

ⁿ STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^o MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; DELPHI STUDY; HUMAN; INSTRUMENT FOR ASSESSING THE CREDIBILITY OF EFFECT MODIFICATION ANALYSIS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RELIABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; CONSENSUS; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY;

CONSENSUS; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 85089327341     PISSN: 08203946     EISSN: 14882329     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.200077     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Schuit E, Li AH, Ioannidis JPA. How often can meta-analyses of individual-level data individualize treatment? A meta-epidemiologic study. Int J Epidemiol 2019;48:596-608.
2. Gabler NB, Duan N, Raneses E, et al. No improvement in the reporting of clinical trial subgroup effects in high-impact general medical journals. Trials 2016;17:320.
3. Simmonds M, Stewart G, Stewart L. A decade of individual participant data meta-analyses: a review of current practice. Contemp Clin Trials 2015;45:76-83.
4. Zhang S, Liang F, Li W, et al. Subgroup analyses in reporting of phase III clinical trials in solid tumors. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:1697-702.
5. Donegan S, Williams L, Dias S, et al. Exploring treatment by covariate interactions using subgroup analysis and meta-regression in Cochrane reviews: a review of recent practice. PLoS One 2015;10:e0128804.
6. Barton SP, Peckitt C, Sclafani F, et al. The influence of industry sponsorship on the reporting of subgroup analyses within phase III randomised controlled trials in gastrointestinal oncology. Eur J Cancer 2015;51:2732-9.
7. Kasenda B, Schandelmaier S, Sun X, et al.; Drosoph Inf ServCO Study Group. Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: cohort study on trial protocols and journal publications published
8. erratum in BMJ 2014;349:4921. BMJ 2014;349:g4539.
9. Sun X, Briel M, Busse JW, et al. Credibility of claims of subgroup effects in randomised controlled trials: systematic review. BMJ 2012;344:e1553.
10. Wang R, Lagakos SW, Ware JH, et al. Statistics in medicine - reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2189-94.
11. Koopman L, van der Heijden GJ, Glasziou PP, et al. A systematic review of analytical methods used to study subgroups in (individual patient data) meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:1002-9.
12. Hernández AV, Boersma E, Murray GD, et al. Subgroup analyses in therapeutic cardiovascular clinical trials: Are most of them misleading? Am Heart J 2006; 151:257-64.
13. Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Li P, et al. Misuse of baseline comparison tests and subgroup analyses in surgical trials. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006;447:247-51.
14. Moreira ED Jr, Stein Z, Susser E. Reporting on methods of subgroup analysis in clinical trials: a survey of four scientific journals. Braz J Med Biol Res 2001;34: 1441-6.
15. Assmann SF, Pocock SJ, Enos LE, et al. Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials. Lancet 2000;355:1064-9.
16. Fields WS, Lemak NA, Frankowski RF, et al. Controlled trial of aspirin in cerebral ischemia. Stroke 1977;8:301-14.
17. Canadian Cooperative Study Group. A randomized trial of aspirin and sulfinpyrazone in threatened stroke. N Engl J Med 1978;299:53-9.
18. Collaborative overview of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy - I: Prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke by prolonged antiplatelet therapy in various categories of patients. Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration published
19. erratum in BMJ 1994;308:1540. BMJ 1994;308:81-106.
20. Amery A, Birkenhäger W, Brixko P, et al. Influence of antihypertensive drug treatment on morbidity and mortality in patients over the age of 60 years. European Working Party on High blood pressure in the Elderly (EWPHE) results: subgroup analysis on entry stratification. J Hypertens Suppl 1986;4:S642-7.
21. Gueyffier F, Bulpitt C, Boissel JP, et al. Antihypertensive drugs in very old people: a subgroup meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. INDANA Group. Lancet 1999;353:793-6.
22. Weisberg LA. The efficacy and safety of ticlopidine and aspirin in non-whites: analysis of a patient subgroup from the Ticlopidine Aspirin Stroke Study. Neurology1993;43:27-31.
23. Gorelick PB, Richardson D, Kelly M, et al.; African American Antiplatelet Stroke Prevention Study Investigators. Aspirin and ticlopidine for prevention of recurrent stroke in black patients: a randomized trial. JAMA 2003;289:2947-57.
24. Rothwell PM. Treating individuals 2. Subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials: importance, indications, and interpretation. Lancet 2005;365: 176-86.
25. Guyatt G. Users' guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education; 2015.
26. Wallach JD, Sullivan PG, Trepanowski JF, et al. Evaluation of evidence of statistical support and corroboration of subgroup claims in randomized clinical trials. JAMA Intern Med 2017;177:554-60.
27. Schandelmaier S, Chang Y, Devasenapathy N, et al. A systematic survey identified 36 criteria for assessing effect modification claims in randomized trials or meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 2019;113:159-67.
28. Dahabreh IJ, Hayward R, Kent DM. Using group data to treat individuals: understanding heterogeneous treatment effects in the age of precision medicine and patient-centred evidence. Int J Epidemiol 2016;45:2184-93.
29. Koopman L, van der Heijden GJ, Hoes AW, et al. Empirical comparison of subgroup effects in conventional and individual patient data meta-analyses. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008;24:358-61.
30. Fisher DJ, Carpenter JR, Morris TP, et al. Meta-analytical methods to identify who benefits most from treatments: Daft, deluded, or deft approach? BMJ 2017;356:j573.
31. Berlin JA, Santanna J, Schmid CH, et al.; Anti-Lymphocyte Antibody Induction Therapy Study Group. Individual patient- versus group-level data meta-regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly head. Stat Med 2002;21:371-87.
32. Yusuf S, Wittes J, Probstfield J, et al. Analysis and interpretation of treatment effects in subgroups of patients in randomized clinical trials. JAMA 1991;266: 93-8.
33. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. A consumer's guide to subgroup analyses. Ann Intern Med 1992;116:78-84.
34. Sun X, Briel M, Walter SD, et al. Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses. BMJ 2010;340:c117.
35. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2015.
36. Whiting P, Wolff R, Mallett S, et al. A proposed framework for developing quality assessment tools. Syst Rev 2017;6:204.
37. Higgins J, Sterne J, Savović J, et al. A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;(Suppl 1):29-31.
38. Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ, Moberg J, et al. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction. BMJ 2016;353:i2016.
39. Royston P, Sauerbrei W. Interaction of treatment with a continuous variable: simulation study of significance level for several methods of analysis. Stat Med 2013;32:3788-803.
40. Royston P, Sauerbrei W. Interaction of treatment with a continuous variable: simulation study of power for several methods of analysis. Stat Med 2014;33: 4695-708.
41. Lipkovich I, Dmitrienko A, D'Agostino BR Sr. Tutorial in biostatistics: data-driven subgroup identification and analysis in clinical trials. Stat Med 2017;36: 136-96.
42. Lipkovich I, Dmitrienko A, Muysers C, et al. Multiplicity issues in exploratory subgroup analysis. J Biopharm Stat 2018;28:63-81.
43. Royston P, Sauerbrei W. A new approach to modelling interactions between treatment and continuous covariates in clinical trials by using fractional polynomials. Stat Med 2004;23:2509-25.
44. Borenstein M, Higgins JP. Meta-analysis and subgroups. Prev Sci 2013;14: 134-43.
45. Dmitrienko A, D'Agostino R Sr. Traditional multiplicity adjustment methods in clinical trials. Stat Med 2013;32:5172-218.
46. Varadhan R, Wang SJ. Treatment effect heterogeneity for univariate subgroups in clinical trials: shrinkage, standardization, or else. Biom J 2016;58:133-53.
47. Varadhan R, Wang SJ. Standardization for subgroup analysis in randomized controlled trials. J Biopharm Stat 2014;24:154-67.