Methodological criteria for the assessment of moderators in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials: a consensus study

Abstract

BackgroundCurrent methodological guidelines provide advice about the assessment of sub-group analysis within RCTs, but do not specify explicit criteria for assessment. Our objective was to provide researchers with a set of criteria that will facilitate the grading of evidence for moderators, in systematic reviews.MethodWe developed a set of criteria from methodological manuscripts (n = 18) using snowballing technique, and electronic database searches. Criteria were reviewed by an international Delphi panel (n = 21), comprising authors who have published methodological papers in this area, and researchers who have been active in the study of sub-group analysis in RCTs. We used the Research ANd Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness method to assess consensus on the quantitative data. Free responses were coded for consensus and disagreement. In a subsequent round additional criteria were extracted from the Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook, and the process was repeated.ResultsThe recommendations are that meta-analysts report both confirmatory and exploratory findings for sub-groups analysis. Confirmatory findings must only come from studies in which a specific theory/evidence based a-priori statement is made. Exploratory findings may be used to inform future/subsequent trials. However, for inclusion in the meta-analysis of moderators, the following additional criteria should be applied to each study: Baseline factors should be measured prior to randomisation, measurement of baseline factors should be of adequate reliability and validity, and a specific test of the interaction between baseline factors and interventions must be presented.ConclusionsThere is consensus from a group of 21 international experts that methodological criteria to assess moderators within systematic reviews of RCTs is both timely and necessary. The consensus from the experts resulted in five criteria divided into two groups when synthesising evidence: confirmatory findings to support hypotheses about moderators and exploratory findings to inform future research. These recommendations are discussed in reference to previous recommendations for evaluating and reporting moderator studies.

Predicting response to a cognitive–behavioral approach to treating low back pain: Secondary analysis of the BeST data set

“…We make a clear distinction between confirmatory prespecified subgroup analyses and exploratory subgroup analyses, where the former is used for hypothesis testing and the latter is hypothesis generating (33,34). We used the Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple testing for the prespecified subgroup analyses only.…”

Baseline Characteristics of Patients With Nerve-Related Neck and Arm Pain Predict the Likely Response to Neural Tissue Management

“…4,26,41,53 Statistical methods for creating the model should maximize the chance that the model will maintain its predictive performance when applied to future patients. 28,59 Consideration of all potentially important predictors during initial model development frequently requires analyzing a large number of clinical variables.…”

What Effect can Manual Therapy have on a Patient’s Pain Experience?

“…A treatment effect modifier is a factor that results in a greater treatment effect in one group compared with another and is best identified through randomized controlled trials. Identification of treatment effect moderators future science group www.futuremedicine.com provides information about which patients and under which conditions a particular treatment is most effective [15]. The mechanisms of action underpinning these moderating factors are similar and overlap supraspinal regions mediating MT pain relief.…”

“…As such treatment effect mediators are measured during treatment to determine if changes in the mediating variable in question impact a particular outcome. Once identified, mediating variables are capable of providing additional information related to the process and potential mechanisms by which an intervention may be effective (or ineffective) [15]. In addition, treatment aimed at influencing a mediating variable (assuming it can be modified through direct treatment) may be used to improve the e ffectiveness of other interventions (e.g., MT).…”