↓ Skip to main content

Outcome based subgroup analysis: a neglected concern

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, May 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Outcome based subgroup analysis: a neglected concern
Published in
Trials, May 2009
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-10-33
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karim F Hirji, Morten W Fagerland

Abstract

A subgroup of clinical trial subjects identified by baseline characteristics is a proper subgroup while a subgroup determined by post randomization events or measures is an improper subgroup. Both types of subgroups are often analyzed in clinical trial papers. Yet, the extensive scrutiny of subgroup analyses has almost exclusively attended to the former. The analysis of improper subgroups thereby not only flourishes in numerous disguised ways but also does so without a corresponding awareness of its pitfalls. Comparisons of the grade of angina in a heart disease trial, for example, usually include only the survivors. This paper highlights some of the distinct ways in which outcome based subgroup analysis occurs, describes the hazards associated with it, and proposes a simple alternative approach to counter its analytic bias.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 58 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 25%
Researcher 11 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Professor 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 10%
Mathematics 6 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 14 24%