Exploring treatment by covariate interactions using subgroup analysis and meta-regression in cochrane reviews: a review of recent practice

Ref ID 547
First Author S. Donegan
Journal PLOS ONE
Year Of Publishing 2015
URL https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26029923/
Keywords Cochrane
Multiplicity
Statistical
Pre-specification
Subgroup
General medical
Problem(s) Multiplicity of outcomes and lack of pre-specification for outcome reporting
Unplanned or unjustified subgroup or sensitivity analyses
Number of systematic reviews included 52
Summary of Findings The type of analysis planned and the type subsequently applied (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analysis) was discrepant in 46% of reviews. No review reported how or why each covariate had been chosen; 42% of reviews did state each covariate a priori in the protocol but no review identified each post-hoc covariate as such.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes