Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses

By Xin Sun, M. Briel, Stephen D. Walter, G. Guyatt. British medical journal, 2010

725 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)--explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. (2013, background): “[50] for example of current reporting guidance).”
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force. (2022, methodology): “interpretation of results, such as biological plausibility of hypotheses and prespecification of subgroup testing.(78)”
Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (2018, background): “9 million visits in which opioids were prescribed for CNCP in 2000 [14].”
Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data (2017, methodology): “39 Specifically, the relevant effect modifiers were specified a priori and measured at base-line, P values for interaction remained significant after adjustment for potential confounders, and subgroup effects were consistent when analysed as proportions and event rates.”