Subgroup analysis as a source of spurious findings: an illustration using new data on alcohol intake and coronary heart disease.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Association between clinically recorded alcohol consumption and initial presentation of 12 cardiovascular diseases: population based cohort study using linked health records.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2017
   Trial
2. Statistical Analysis in the German National Cohort (NAKO) - Specific Aspects and General Recommendations.European journal of epidemiology · 2022
   Article
3. Standardized Protocol Items Recommendations for Observational Studies (SPIROS) for Observational Study Protocol Reporting Guidelines: Protocol for a Delphi Study.JMIR research protocols · 2020
   Article
4. How subgroup analyses can miss the trees for the forest plots: A simulation study.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2020
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Significance chasing in research practice: causes, consequences and possible solutions.2015

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as