Age-treatment subgroup analyses in Cochrane intervention reviews: a meta-epidemiological study.
BACKGROUND
There is growing interest in evaluating differences in healthcare interventions across routinely collected demographic characteristics. However, individual subgroup analyses in randomized controlled trials are often not prespecified, adjusted for multiple testing, or conducted using the appropriate statistical test for interaction, and therefore frequently lack credibility. Meta-analyses can be used to examine the validity of potential subgroup differences by collating evidence across trials. Here, we characterize the conduct and clinical translation of age-treatment subgroup analyses in Cochrane reviews.


METHODS
For a random sample of 928 Cochrane intervention reviews of randomized trials, we determined how often subgroup analyses of age are reported, how often these analyses have a P < 0.05 from formal interaction testing, how frequently subgroup differences first observed in an individual trial are later corroborated by other trials in the same meta-analysis, and how often statistically significant results are included in commonly used clinical management resources (BMJ Best Practice, UpToDate, Cochrane Clinical Answers, Google Scholar, and Google search).


RESULTS
Among 928 Cochrane intervention reviews, 189 (20.4%) included plans to conduct age-treatment subgroup analyses. The vast majority (162 of 189, 85.7%) of the planned analyses were not conducted, commonly because of insufficient trial data. There were 22 reviews that conducted their planned age-treatment subgroup analyses, and another 3 reviews appeared to perform unplanned age-treatment subgroup analyses. These 25 (25 of 928, 2.7%) reviews conducted a total of 97 age-treatment subgroup analyses, of which 65 analyses (in 20 reviews) had non-overlapping subgroup levels. Among the 65 age-treatment subgroup analyses, 14 (21.5%) did not report any formal interaction testing. Seven (10.8%) reported P < 0.05 from formal age-treatment interaction testing; however, none of these seven analyses were in reviews that discussed the potential biological rationale or clinical significance of the subgroup findings or had results that were included in common clinical practice resources.


CONCLUSION
Age-treatment subgroup analyses in Cochrane intervention reviews were frequently planned but rarely conducted, and implications of detected interactions were not discussed in the reviews or mentioned in common clinical resources. When subgroup analyses are performed, authors should report the findings, compare the results to previous studies, and outline any potential impact on clinical care.
['Liu|Patrick|P|', 'Ioannidis|John P A|JPA|', 'Ross|Joseph S|JS|', 'Dhruva|Sanket S|SS|', 'Luxkaranayagam|Anita T|AT|', 'Vasiliou|Vasilis|V|', 'Wallach|Joshua D|JD|0000-0002-2816-6905']
D017677:Age Distribution D000367:Age Factors D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical D015340:Epidemiologic Research Design D016021:Epidemiologic Studies D005260:Female D006801:Humans D057285:Precision Medicine D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic D012107:Research Design D012196:Review Literature as Topic
Subgroup analyses Age subgroups Heterogeneity of treatment effects Precision medicine