ArticleBMC medical research methodology2017
The development of CHAMP: a checklist for the appraisal of moderators and predictors.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Do recommended interventions widen or narrow inequalities in musculoskeletal health? An equity-focussed systematic review of differential effectiveness.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2022Pooled it
- Psychological interventions for common mental disorders in women experiencing intimate partner violence in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The lancet. Psychiatry · 2020Pooled it
- Treatment effect modifiers of virtual reality-based versus standard cognitive behavioral therapy for paranoia in schizophrenia spectrum disorders: an exploratory moderator analysis of clinical and demographic characteristics in the FaceYourFears trial.Psychological medicine · 2026Trial
- Effectiveness of nicotine gum in preventing lapses in the face of temptation to smoke among non-daily smokers: a secondary analysis.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2020Trial
- Trial
- Moving Beyond Moderation to Identify Differential Treatment Effects of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Childhood Anxiety: A Systematic Review.Clinical child and family psychology review · 2026Review
- Article
- Article
- A permutation procedure to detect heterogeneous treatment effects in randomized clinical trials while controlling the type I error rate.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2022Article
- Heterogeneous treatment effects in social policy studies: An assessment of contemporary articles in the health and social sciences.Annals of epidemiology · 2022Article
- Predictors and moderators of outcome of psychotherapeutic interventions for mental disorders in adolescents and young adults: protocol for systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Moderators of the effects of therapeutic exercise for people with knee and hip osteoarthritis: A systematic review of sub-group analyses from randomised controlled trials.Osteoarthritis and cartilage open · 2020Review
- Article
- Minimizing Drug Adverse Events by Informing About the Nocebo Effect-An Experimental Study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019Article
- Baseline Psychological Inflexibility Moderates the Outcome Pain Interference in a Randomized Controlled Trial on Internet-based Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Chronic Pain.Journal of clinical medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPersonalized healthcare relies on the identification of factors explaining why individuals respond differently to the same intervention. Analyses identifying such factors, so called predictors and moderators, have their own set of assumptions and limitations which, when violated, can result in misleading claims, and incorrect actions. The aim of this study was to develop a checklist for critically appraising the results of predictor and moderator analyses by combining recommendations from published guidelines and experts in the field.
methodsCandidate criteria for the checklist were retrieved through systematic searches of the literature. These criteria were evaluated for appropriateness using a Delphi procedure. Two Delphi rounds yielded a pilot checklist, which was tested on a set of papers included in a systematic review on reinforced home-based palliative care. The results of the pilot informed a third Delphi round, which served to finalize the checklist.
resultsForty-nine appraisal criteria were identified in the literature. Feedback was obtained from fourteen experts from (bio)statistics, epidemiology and other associated fields elicited via three Delphi rounds. Additional feedback from other researchers was collected in a pilot test. The final version of our checklist included seventeen criteria, covering the design (e.g. a priori plausibility), analysis (e.g. use of interaction tests) and results (e.g. complete reporting) of moderator and predictor analysis, together with the transferability of the results (e.g. clinical importance). There are criteria both for individual papers and for bodies of evidence.
conclusionsThe proposed checklist can be used for critical appraisal of reported moderator and predictor effects, as assessed in randomized or non-randomized studies using individual participant or aggregate data. This checklist is accompanied by a user's guide to facilitate implementation. Its future use across a wide variety of research domains and study types will provide insights about its usability and feasibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.