An analysis of reports from phase III trials (published between 2011 and 2013) investigating patients with solid tumours found widespread failings in both the conduct and reporting of subgroup analyses. Readers might well be misled by such analyses. Editors should, therefore, implement policies to reduce the risk of publishing misleading results.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Relevant articles
Open Access articles citing this article.
-
Differential Effects of an Early Childhood Care Preventive Intervention Program on Behavior and Emotional Problems
Journal of Child and Family Studies Open Access 21 August 2023
-
Machine learning analysis plans for randomised controlled trials: detecting treatment effect heterogeneity with strict control of type I error
Trials Open Access 10 February 2020
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Zhang, S., Liang, F., Li, W. & Hu, X. Subgroup analyses in reporting of phase III clinical trials in solid tumors. J. Clin. Oncol. 33, 1697–1702 (2015).
Chan, A.-W., Hróbjartsson, A., Haahr, M. T., Gøtzsche, P. C. & Altman, D. G. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: Comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291, 2457–2465 (2004).
Dwan, K. et al. Evidence for the selective reporting of analyses and discrepancies in clinical trials: a systematic review of cohort studies of clinical trials. PLoS Med. 11, e1001666 (2014).
Kasenda, B. et al. Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: cohort study on trial protocols and journal publications. BMJ 349, g4539 (2014).
Kaufman, J. S. & MacLehose, R. F. Which of these things is not like the others? Cancer 119, 4216–4222 (2013).
Moher, D. et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 340, c869 (2010).
Pocock, S. J., Hughes, M. D. & Lee, R. J. Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials: a survey of three medical journals. N. Engl. J. Med. 317, 426–432 (1987).
Yusuf, S., Wittes, J., Probstfield, J. & Tyroler, H. A. Analysis and interpretation of treatment effects in subgroups of patients in randomised clinical trials. JAMA 266, 93–98 (1991).
Boutron, I., Dutton, S., Ravaud, P. & Altman, D. G. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA 303, 2058–2064 (2010).
Sun, X. et al. Credibility of claims of subgroup effects in randomised controlled trials: systematic review. BMJ 344, e1553 (2012).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Altman, D. Subgroup analyses in randomized trials—more rigour needed. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 12, 506–507 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.133
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.133
This article is cited by
-
Differential Effects of an Early Childhood Care Preventive Intervention Program on Behavior and Emotional Problems
Journal of Child and Family Studies (2024)
-
Machine learning analysis plans for randomised controlled trials: detecting treatment effect heterogeneity with strict control of type I error
Trials (2020)
-
Correction regarding data on blinatumomab-associated seizures
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology (2016)