Exploring treatment by covariate interactions using subgroup analysis and meta-regression in cochrane reviews: a review of recent practice
- PMID: 26029923
- PMCID: PMC4452239
- DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128804
Exploring treatment by covariate interactions using subgroup analysis and meta-regression in cochrane reviews: a review of recent practice
Abstract
Background: Treatment by covariate interactions can be explored in reviews using interaction analyses (e.g., subgroup analysis). Such analyses can provide information on how the covariate modifies the treatment effect and is an important methodological approach for personalising medicine. Guidance exists regarding how to apply such analyses but little is known about whether authors follow the guidance.
Methods: Using published recommendations, we developed criteria to assess how well interaction analyses were designed, applied, interpreted, and reported. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched (8th August 2013). We applied the criteria to the most recently published review, with an accessible protocol, for each Cochrane Review Group. We excluded review updates, diagnostic test accuracy reviews, withdrawn reviews, and overviews of reviews. Data were summarised regarding reviews, covariates, and analyses.
Results: Each of the 52 included reviews planned or did interaction analyses; 51 reviews (98%) planned analyses and 33 reviews (63%) applied analyses. The type of analysis planned and the type subsequently applied (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analysis) was discrepant in 24 reviews (46%). No review reported how or why each covariate had been chosen; 22 reviews (42%) did state each covariate a priori in the protocol but no review identified each post-hoc covariate as such. Eleven reviews (21%) mentioned five covariates or less. One review reported planning to use a method to detect interactions (i.e., interaction test) for each covariate; another review reported applying the method for each covariate. Regarding interpretation, only one review reported whether an interaction was detected for each covariate and no review discussed the importance, or plausibility, of the results, or the possibility of confounding for each covariate.
Conclusions: Interaction analyses in Cochrane Reviews can be substantially improved. The proposed criteria can be used to help guide the reporting and conduct of analyses.
Conflict of interest statement
Similar articles
-
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834
-
Age-treatment subgroup analyses in Cochrane intervention reviews: a meta-epidemiological study.BMC Med. 2019 Oct 21;17(1):188. doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1420-8. BMC Med. 2019. PMID: 31639007 Free PMC article.
-
Overviews of reviews incompletely report methods for handling overlapping, discordant, and problematic data.J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Feb;118:69-85. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.09.025. Epub 2019 Oct 10. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020. PMID: 31606430 Review.
-
Cluster Randomised Trials in Cochrane Reviews: Evaluation of Methodological and Reporting Practice.PLoS One. 2016 Mar 16;11(3):e0151818. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151818. eCollection 2016. PLoS One. 2016. PMID: 26982697 Free PMC article.
-
A methodological review of how heterogeneity has been examined in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy.Health Technol Assess. 2005 Mar;9(12):1-113, iii. doi: 10.3310/hta9120. Health Technol Assess. 2005. PMID: 15774235 Review.
Cited by
-
Heterogeneous treatment effects in social policy studies: An assessment of contemporary articles in the health and social sciences.Ann Epidemiol. 2022 Jun;70:79-88. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2022.04.009. Epub 2022 Apr 26. Ann Epidemiol. 2022. PMID: 35483641 Free PMC article.
-
Cancer-related fatigue in patients treated with mistletoe extracts: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Support Care Cancer. 2022 Aug;30(8):6405-6418. doi: 10.1007/s00520-022-06921-x. Epub 2022 Mar 3. Support Care Cancer. 2022. PMID: 35239008 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Systematic review with meta-analysis: neoplasia detection rate and post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia in Barrett's oesophagus.Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2021 Sep;54(5):546-559. doi: 10.1111/apt.16531. Epub 2021 Jul 18. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2021. PMID: 34275161 Free PMC article.
-
Extending the I-squared statistic to describe treatment effect heterogeneity in cluster, multi-centre randomized trials and individual patient data meta-analysis.Stat Methods Med Res. 2021 Feb;30(2):376-395. doi: 10.1177/0962280220948550. Epub 2020 Sep 21. Stat Methods Med Res. 2021. PMID: 32955403 Free PMC article.
-
Development of the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses.CMAJ. 2020 Aug 10;192(32):E901-E906. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.200077. CMAJ. 2020. PMID: 32778601 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org/.
-
- Thompson SG, Higgins JPT. How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Statistics in Medicine.2002; 21: 1559–1573. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources