ReviewInternational journal of clinical oncology2025
How to report and discuss subgroup analyses in clinical practice guidelines? Evaluation procedure of the clinical and statistical relevancy.
Review in International journal of clinical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The results of subgroup analyses of clinical trials are important reference information when considering the generalizability of a study treatment, i.e., providing the best treatment for each individual patient. The results of subgroup analyses are often presented in publications, etc. as forest plots focusing on patient backgrounds. However, it is important to fully understand and grasp some of the issues involved in subgroup analyses and to interpret the results carefully to apply them in clinical practice. Although the literature includes some reports on how subgroup analyses should be evaluated and handled for the purpose of establishing medical practice guidelines, most of the papers have mainly evaluated the reliability of subgroup analyses from a statistical perspective; few of them have incorporated clinical importance in their evaluations. Therefore, in December 2019, we established a Subgroup Analysis Review Committee consisting of oncologists specializing in lung cancer treatment and statistical experts among the members of the Guidelines Review Committee of the Japanese Lung Cancer Association, with the aim of appropriately reflecting subgroup analysis in Japanese lung cancer practice guidelines. We developed a new evaluation strategy to incorporate clinical aspects as well as reliability assessment. Specifically, on the basis of a clinical and statistical review of the problems with subgroup analyses presented as clinical trial results, we developed criteria and procedures to ensure consistency and fairness in the citation of clinical guidelines.
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.