To the Editor We applaud the cautionary warnings of Douglas A. Jabs, MD, MBA, regarding subgroup analyses in an Invited Commentary1 in JAMA Ophthalmology on our recent article2 in JAMA. The presentation of our trial findings reflected just such a perspective—even for the case of posterior uveitis or panuveitis, the principal prespecified subgroup that accounted for most of the included patients.2 However, we believe readers may be misled on an important point: the Invited Commentary states that randomization was lost because enrollment was not stratified by anatomic subgroup.1
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Porco TC, Kim E, Acharya NR. Stratification Clarification for Methods for Randomized Clinical Trials. JAMA Ophthalmol. Published online May 21, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2020.1551
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: