期刊
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 113, 期 -, 页码 159-167出版社
ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.05.014
关键词
Epidemiologic methods (MeSH); Meta-analysis as topic (MeSH); Clinical trials as topic (MeSH); Health care evaluation mechanisms (MeSH); Precision medicine (MeSH); Subgroup analysis
资金
- Swiss National Science Foundation [P300PB_164750]
- Gottfried and Julia Bangerter-Rhyner-Foundation
- Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft Basel
- Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [P300PB_164750] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)
Objective: The objective of the study was to systematically survey the methodological literature and collect suggested criteria for assessing the credibility of effect modification and associated rationales. Study Design and Setting: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and WorldCat up to March 2018 for publications providing guidance for assessing the credibility of effect modification identified in randomized trials or meta-analyses. Teams of two investigators independently identified eligible publications and extracted credibility criteria and authors' rationale, reaching consensus through discussion. We created a taxonomy of criteria that we iteratively refined during data abstraction. Results: We identified 150 eligible publications that provided 36 criteria and associated rationales. Frequent criteria included significant test for interaction (n = 54), a priori hypothesis (n = 49), providing a causal explanation (n = 47), accounting for multiplicity (n = 45), testing a small number of effect modifiers (n = 38), and prespecification of analytic details (n = 39). For some criteria, we found more than one rationale; some criteria were connected through a common rationale. For some criteria, experts disagreed regarding their suitability (e.g., added value of stratified randomization; trustworthiness of biologic rationales). Conclusion: Methodologists have expended substantial intellectual energy providing criteria for critical appraisal of apparent effect modification. Our survey highlights popular criteria, expert agreement and disagreement, and where more work is needed, including testing criteria in practice. (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier Inc.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据