Debate: Subgroup analyses in clinical trials: fun to look at - but don't believe them!

被引:3
作者
Peter Sleight
机构
[1] John Radcliffe Hospital,
关键词
astrology; clinical trials; overview; play of chance; randomization;
D O I
10.1186/cvm-1-1-025
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Analysis of subgroup results in a clinical trial is surprisingly unreliable, even in a large trial. This is the result of a combination of reduced statistical power, increased variance and the play of chance. Reliance on such analyses is likely to be more erroneous, and hence harmful, than application of the overall proportional (or relative) result in the whole trial to the estimate of absolute risk in that subgroup. Plausible explanations can usually be found for effects that are, in reality, simply due to the play of chance. When clinicians believe such subgroup analyses, there is a real danger of harm to the individual patient.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 34 条
[1]  
Hansson L(1999)Effect of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition compared with conventional therapy on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the Captopril Prevention Project (CAPPP) randomised trial. Lancet 353 611-616
[2]  
Lindholm LH(2000)Effects of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 342 145-153
[3]  
Niskanen L(1994)Indications for fibrinolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction: collaborative overview of mortality and major morbidity results from all randomised trials of more than 1000 patients. Lancet 343 311-322
[4]  
Lanke J(1985)Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomised trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 27 335-371
[5]  
Hedner T(1977)Steins paradox in statistics. Sci Am 236 119-127
[6]  
Niklason A(1993)An international randomized trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 329 673-682
[7]  
Luomanmaki K(1995)Streptokinase is still the agent of choice for most patients with myocardial infarction. Am J Ther 2 128-135
[8]  
Dahlof B(2000)Lack of benefit for intravenous thrombolysis in patients with myocardial infarction who are older than 75 years. Circulation 101 2239-2246
[9]  
de Faire U(1997)Aspirin, heparin and fibrinolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 336 847-860
[10]  
Morlin C(undefined)undefined undefined undefined undefined-undefined