Assessing heterogeneity of treatment effects

Are authors misinterpreting their results?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective. To determine whether investigations of heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) in randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are prespecified and whether authors' interpretations of their analyses are consistent with the objective evidence. Data Sources/Study Setting. Trials published in Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine in 1994, 1999, and 2004. Study Design. We reviewed 87 RCTs that reported formal tests for statistical interaction or heterogeneity (HTE analyses), derived from a probability sample of 541 articles. Data Collection/Extraction. We recorded reasons for performing HTE analysis; an objective classification of evidence for HTE (termed "clinicostatistical divergence" [CSD]); and authors' interpretations of findings. Authors' interpretations, compared with CSD, were coded as understated, overstated, or adequately stated. Principle Findings. Fifty-three RCTs (61 percent) claimed prespecified covariates for HTE analyses. Trials showed strong (6), moderate (11), weak (25), or negligible (16) evidence for CSD (29 could not be classified due to inadequate information). Authors stated that evidence for HTE was sufficient to support differential treatment in subgroups (10); warranted more research (31); was absent (21); or provided no interpretation (25). HTE was overstated in 22 trials, adequately stated in 57 trials, and understated in 8 trials. Conclusions. Inconsistencies in performance and reporting may limit the potential of HTE analysis as a tool for identifying HTE and individualizing care in diverse populations. Recommendations for future studies on the reporting and interpretation of HTE analyses are provided.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)283-301
Number of pages19
JournalHealth Services Research
Volume45
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2010

Fingerprint

Randomized Controlled Trials
Sampling Studies
New England
Information Storage and Retrieval
American Medical Association
Internal Medicine
Medicine
Research
Population

Keywords

  • Heterogeneity of treatment effects
  • HTE analysis
  • Individualized care
  • Interaction analysis
  • Subgroup analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy

Cite this

Assessing heterogeneity of treatment effects : Are authors misinterpreting their results? / Fernandez y Garcia, Erik; Nguyen, Hien H; Duan, Naihua; Gabler, Nicole B.; Kravitz, Richard L.

In: Health Services Research, Vol. 45, No. 1, 02.2010, p. 283-301.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4b40154600ad4378845ee7f9ce207391,
title = "Assessing heterogeneity of treatment effects: Are authors misinterpreting their results?",
abstract = "Objective. To determine whether investigations of heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) in randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are prespecified and whether authors' interpretations of their analyses are consistent with the objective evidence. Data Sources/Study Setting. Trials published in Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine in 1994, 1999, and 2004. Study Design. We reviewed 87 RCTs that reported formal tests for statistical interaction or heterogeneity (HTE analyses), derived from a probability sample of 541 articles. Data Collection/Extraction. We recorded reasons for performing HTE analysis; an objective classification of evidence for HTE (termed {"}clinicostatistical divergence{"} [CSD]); and authors' interpretations of findings. Authors' interpretations, compared with CSD, were coded as understated, overstated, or adequately stated. Principle Findings. Fifty-three RCTs (61 percent) claimed prespecified covariates for HTE analyses. Trials showed strong (6), moderate (11), weak (25), or negligible (16) evidence for CSD (29 could not be classified due to inadequate information). Authors stated that evidence for HTE was sufficient to support differential treatment in subgroups (10); warranted more research (31); was absent (21); or provided no interpretation (25). HTE was overstated in 22 trials, adequately stated in 57 trials, and understated in 8 trials. Conclusions. Inconsistencies in performance and reporting may limit the potential of HTE analysis as a tool for identifying HTE and individualizing care in diverse populations. Recommendations for future studies on the reporting and interpretation of HTE analyses are provided.",
keywords = "Heterogeneity of treatment effects, HTE analysis, Individualized care, Interaction analysis, Subgroup analysis",
author = "{Fernandez y Garcia}, Erik and Nguyen, {Hien H} and Naihua Duan and Gabler, {Nicole B.} and Kravitz, {Richard L}",
year = "2010",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.01064.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "45",
pages = "283--301",
journal = "Health Services Research",
issn = "0017-9124",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing heterogeneity of treatment effects

T2 - Are authors misinterpreting their results?

AU - Fernandez y Garcia, Erik

AU - Nguyen, Hien H

AU - Duan, Naihua

AU - Gabler, Nicole B.

AU - Kravitz, Richard L

PY - 2010/2

Y1 - 2010/2

N2 - Objective. To determine whether investigations of heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) in randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are prespecified and whether authors' interpretations of their analyses are consistent with the objective evidence. Data Sources/Study Setting. Trials published in Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine in 1994, 1999, and 2004. Study Design. We reviewed 87 RCTs that reported formal tests for statistical interaction or heterogeneity (HTE analyses), derived from a probability sample of 541 articles. Data Collection/Extraction. We recorded reasons for performing HTE analysis; an objective classification of evidence for HTE (termed "clinicostatistical divergence" [CSD]); and authors' interpretations of findings. Authors' interpretations, compared with CSD, were coded as understated, overstated, or adequately stated. Principle Findings. Fifty-three RCTs (61 percent) claimed prespecified covariates for HTE analyses. Trials showed strong (6), moderate (11), weak (25), or negligible (16) evidence for CSD (29 could not be classified due to inadequate information). Authors stated that evidence for HTE was sufficient to support differential treatment in subgroups (10); warranted more research (31); was absent (21); or provided no interpretation (25). HTE was overstated in 22 trials, adequately stated in 57 trials, and understated in 8 trials. Conclusions. Inconsistencies in performance and reporting may limit the potential of HTE analysis as a tool for identifying HTE and individualizing care in diverse populations. Recommendations for future studies on the reporting and interpretation of HTE analyses are provided.

AB - Objective. To determine whether investigations of heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) in randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are prespecified and whether authors' interpretations of their analyses are consistent with the objective evidence. Data Sources/Study Setting. Trials published in Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine in 1994, 1999, and 2004. Study Design. We reviewed 87 RCTs that reported formal tests for statistical interaction or heterogeneity (HTE analyses), derived from a probability sample of 541 articles. Data Collection/Extraction. We recorded reasons for performing HTE analysis; an objective classification of evidence for HTE (termed "clinicostatistical divergence" [CSD]); and authors' interpretations of findings. Authors' interpretations, compared with CSD, were coded as understated, overstated, or adequately stated. Principle Findings. Fifty-three RCTs (61 percent) claimed prespecified covariates for HTE analyses. Trials showed strong (6), moderate (11), weak (25), or negligible (16) evidence for CSD (29 could not be classified due to inadequate information). Authors stated that evidence for HTE was sufficient to support differential treatment in subgroups (10); warranted more research (31); was absent (21); or provided no interpretation (25). HTE was overstated in 22 trials, adequately stated in 57 trials, and understated in 8 trials. Conclusions. Inconsistencies in performance and reporting may limit the potential of HTE analysis as a tool for identifying HTE and individualizing care in diverse populations. Recommendations for future studies on the reporting and interpretation of HTE analyses are provided.

KW - Heterogeneity of treatment effects

KW - HTE analysis

KW - Individualized care

KW - Interaction analysis

KW - Subgroup analysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=74549122386&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=74549122386&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.01064.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.01064.x

M3 - Article

VL - 45

SP - 283

EP - 301

JO - Health Services Research

JF - Health Services Research

SN - 0017-9124

IS - 1

ER -