In Reply Subgroup analyses typically are performed in randomized clinical trials. Proper subgroup analyses are performed on subgroups based on baseline characteristics and may be specified a priori or a posteriori. They are performed to determine if the results of the trial are potentially confounded and the treatment effects vary by subgroup. Subgroup differences in outcomes may be quantitative in nature (in that the effect is in the same direction but different in magnitude) or qualitative in nature (in that the effect is in a different direction than the overall trial results). A major problem with a posteriori–defined subgroup analyses is multiple comparisons. If 20 subgroups are analyzed, one might be expected to be different with a P value less than .05 by chance alone, and most often the number of a posteriori–defined subgroup analyses performed is not specified. This problem can be minimized by limiting the number of subgroups to only a priori–specified subgroups, using corrections for multiple analyses, and including interaction P values. However, despite using these precautions, subgroup results that are qualitatively different from the primary results should be viewed with great caution. This is true especially when the primary results do not show a difference between groups, but even when the primary outcome shows a difference between groups. Biologic plausibility and confirming the results of subgroup analyses in subsequent trials and/or demonstrating a consistent subgroup effect over several trials give confidence that the result is real and not by chance alone.1,2
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.
Jabs DA. Stratification Clarification for Methods for Randomized Clinical Trials—Reply. JAMA Ophthalmol. Published online May 21, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2020.1864
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: