#MethodMonday 9: Interpreting subgroup analyses doi.org/10.1001/jama.2…
This articles discusses the interpretation and assessment of the reliability of subgroup analyses results - from both trials and meta-analyses. Most important points are covered 1/..
although covering everything in a single paper is difficult. The article gives an overview of the key considerations and also describes how most trials/meta-analyses have limited power for subgroup analyses, and that we consequently need to be careful with interpretations.. 2/..
Both of subgroup analyses showing effects (may be due to random chance and multiple testing) and those that do not firmly show effects (which do not exclude underlying differences) 3/..
#65trial Primary outcome of 90-day mortality not "statistically significant", but point estimate favours perm. hypotension. Can a Bayesian re-analysis help us interpret these results? #CCR20 (1/...)
First, the best way to interpret frequentist 95% CIs that I have encountered (@EpiEllie) is to consider them to be like ring tosses - either they contain the true value or they don't: medium.com/@EpiEllie/havi… (2/...)
@EpiEllie If the study is repeated indefinitely and a 95% CI is calculated each time, 95% of these intervals will contain the true value - but for a single 95% CI we don't know whether or not this is the case (either it does contain the true value or it does not). (3/...)