ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
Subgroup analysis methods for time-to-event outcomes in heterogeneous randomized controlled trials.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNon-significant randomized controlled trials can hide subgroups of good responders to experimental drugs, thus hindering subsequent development. Identifying such heterogeneous treatment effects is key for precision medicine and many post-hoc analysis methods have been developed for that purpose. While several benchmarks have been carried out to identify the strengths and weaknesses of these methods, notably for binary and continuous endpoints, similar systematic empirical evaluation of subgroup analysis for time-to-event endpoints is lacking.
methodsThis work aims to fill this gap by evaluating several subgroup analysis algorithms in the context of time-to-event outcomes, by means of three different research questions: Is there heterogeneity? What are the biomarkers responsible for such heterogeneity? Who are the good responders to treatment? In this context, we propose a new synthetic and semi-synthetic data generation process that allows one to explore a wide range of heterogeneity scenarios with precise control on the level of heterogeneity.
resultsMethods are overall comparable when it comes to detecting heterogeneity, but interaction test-based methods demonstrate better statistical power in harder-to-detect heterogeneity settings. Cox-based multivariate and interaction test-based methods are best at identifying variables predictive of heterogeneity. Methods able to estimate the Conditional Average Treatment Effect (CATE), such as S-learners based on Cox- and tree-based multivariate algorithms, are well suited to identify subgroup of good responders, with Cox-multivariate method being especially effective in low and intermediate heterogeneity settings, but outperformed in higher heterogeneity settings.
conclusionsNot all methods are suited for all heterogeneity investigations. We recommend employing interaction test-based methods to detect heterogeneity and identify predictive variables, and leveraging multivariate CATE estimation-based approaches for subgroup identification. Moreover, we recommend adopting a two-step strategy consisting of (i) establishing the existence of heterogeneity and finding responsible covariates using interpretable methods and (ii) looking for subgroups using more complex methods.
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.