Critical Appraisal of Subgroup Analysis
Received: 08-Jan-2016 / Accepted Date: 15-Jan-2016 / Published Date: 22-Jan-2016 DOI: 10.4172/2471-9919.1000e115
Introduction
In the subgroup analysis is performed by separating the data for patient subgroups, such as those in different stages, with different comorbidities and ages. Table 1 shows the checklist needed to make a critical analysis of subgroup analysis [1-8].
| Appraisal questions |
|---|
| The hypothesis was before or after the analysis? |
| The difference between subgroups was one of a small number of hypotheses tested effects? |
| The difference between the subgroups is suggested by comparison intra studies? |
| What is the magnitude of the difference between subgroups? |
| The difference between subgroups is consistent among the analysed studies? |
| The difference between subgroups is statistically significant? The appropriate statistical test was used? |
| There is external evidence that supports the hypothesis of difference between subgroups? |
| There is constant interaction between the results found and previous studies? |
| Conflicts of interest are declared. |
High quality (++): Majority of criteria met. Little or no risk of bias.
Acceptable (+): Most criteria met. Some flaws in the study with an associated risk of bias.
Low quality (-): Either most criteria not met, or significant flaws relating to key aspects of study design.
Reject (0): Poor quality study with significant flaws. Wrong study type. Not relevant to guideline.
Table 1: Critical appraisal of subgroup analysis.
Use this checklist can improve the evaluation of subgroup analysis.
References
- Guyatt G, Meade MO, Cook DJ, Rennie D (2014) Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-based Clinical Practice, Third edition. New York.
- Sackett DL, Richardson WS, Rosemberg WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes BR (2010) Evidence-Based Medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. Churchill Livingstone.
- Whiting P,Savovic J,Higgins JP,Caldwell DM,Reeves BC, et al. (2016) ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk ofbiasin systematic reviews was developed. J ClinEpidemiol 69:225-234.
- Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. BMJ 343:d5928.
- Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155: 529e36.
- Sterne JAC, Higgins JPT, Reeves BC (2014) on behalf of the development group for ACROBAT- NRSI, A Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool: for Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ACROBATNRSI).
- Lawrentschuk N, McCall J, Güller U (2009) Critical appraisal of meta-analyses: an introductory guide for the practicing surgeon. P atient SafSurg 3: 16.
Citation: Roever L, Oliveira BFG (2016) Critical Appraisal of Subgroup Analysis 1: e115. Doi: 10.4172/2471-9919.1000e115
Copyright: © 2016 Roever L. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Share This Article
Open Access Journals
Article Tools
Article Usage
- Total views: 10635
- [From(publication date): 4-2016 - Apr 24, 2024]
- Breakdown by view type
- HTML page views: 9922
- PDF downloads: 713
