Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33785666›Full record

ReviewThe Korean journal of pain2021

The quality of subgroup analyses in chronic pain randomized controlled trials: a methodological review.

Mahmood AminiLari, Vahid Ashoorian, Alexa Caldwell, Yasir Rahman, Robby Nieuwlaat, Jason W Busse, Lawrence Mbuagbaw

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The Korean journal of pain, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 46% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mahmood AminiLariDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0517-9666
Vahid AshoorianMichael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9225-155X
Alexa CaldwellMichael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0223-6303
Yasir RahmanDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2817-3638
Robby NieuwlaatDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5267-7748
Jason W BusseDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0178-8712
Lawrence MbuagbawDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5855-5461
Impact · CAMcMaster University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The quality of subgroup analyses (SGAs) in chronic non-cancer pain trials is uncertain. The purpose of this study was to address this issue. We conducted a comprehensive search in MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 2012 to September 2018 to identify eligible trials. Two pairs of reviewers assessed the quality of the SGAs and the credibility of subgroup claims using the 10 criteria developed by Sun et al. in 2012. The associations between the quality of the SGAs and the studies' characteristics including risk of bias, funding sources, sample size, and the latest impact factor, were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Our search retrieved 3,401 articles of which 66 were eligible. The total number of SGAs was 177 of which 52 (29.4%) made a subgroup claim. Of these, only 15 (8.5%) were evaluated as being of high quality. Among the 30 SGAs that claimed subgroup effects using an appropriate method of performing interaction tests, the credibility of only 5 were assessed as high. None of the subgroup claims met all the credibility criteria. No significant association was found between the quality of SGAs and the studies' characteristics. The quality of the SGAs performed in chronic pain trials was poor. To enhance the quality of SGAs, scholars should consider the developed criteria when designing and conducting trials, particularly those which need to be specified a

Indexed as

BiasChronic PainLogistic ModelsMEDLINEMethodsPainResearch DesignUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID33785666
PMCPMC8019964
OpenAlexW3148154447

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.