edoc

A systematic survey identified 36 criteria for assessing effect modification claims in randomized trials or meta-analyses

Schandelmaier, Stefan and Chang, Yaping and Devasenapathy, Niveditha and Devji, Tahira and Kwong, Joey S. W. and Colunga Lozano, Luis E. and Lee, Yung and Agarwal, Arnav and Bhatnagar, Neera and Ewald, Hannah and Zhang, Ying and Sun, Xin and Thabane, Lehana and Walsh, Michael and Briel, Matthias and Guyatt, Gordon H.. (2019) A systematic survey identified 36 criteria for assessing effect modification claims in randomized trials or meta-analyses. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 113. pp. 159-167.

Full text not available from this repository.

Official URL: https://edoc.unibas.ch/71495/

Downloads: Statistics Overview

Abstract

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.; 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.; 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).; 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.
Faculties and Departments:03 Faculty of Medicine > Departement Klinische Forschung > Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics CEB
10 Zentrale universitäre Einrichtungen > Universitätsbibliothek
UniBasel Contributors:Ewald, Hannah
Item Type:Article, refereed
Article Subtype:Research Article
ISSN:1878-5921
Note:Publication type according to Uni Basel Research Database: Journal article
Identification Number:
Last Modified:16 Sep 2019 15:48
Deposited On:16 Sep 2019 15:48

Repository Staff Only: item control page