The Predictive Approaches to Treatment effect Heterogeneity (PATH) Statement: Explanation and Elaboration

The PATH (Predictive Approaches to Treatment effect Heterogeneity) Statement was developed to promote the conduct of, and provide guidance for, predictive analyses of heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) in clinical trials. The goal of predictive HTE analysis is to provide patient-centered estimates of outcome risk with versus without the intervention, taking into account all relevant patient attributes simultaneously, to support more personalized clinical decision making than can be made on the basis of only an overall average treatment effect. The authors distinguished 2 categories of predictive HTE approaches (a "risk-modeling" and an "effect-modeling" approach) and developed 4 sets of guidance statements: criteria to determine when risk-modeling approaches are likely to identify clinically meaningful HTE, methodological aspects of risk-modeling methods, considerations for translation to clinical practice, and considerations and caveats in the use of effect-modeling approaches. They discuss limitations of these methods and enumerate research priorities for advancing methods designed to generate more personalized evidence. This explanation and elaboration document describes the intent and rationale of each recommendation and discusses related analytic considerations, caveats, and reservations.

[1]  Sally Morton,et al.  The Predictive Approaches to Treatment effect Heterogeneity (PATH) Statement , 2019, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[2]  Ewout W Steyerberg,et al.  Models with interactions overestimated heterogeneity of treatment effects and were prone to treatment mistargeting. , 2019, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[3]  G. Molenberghs,et al.  Aligning Estimators With Estimands in Clinical Trials: Putting the ICH E9(R1) Guidelines Into Practice. , 2019, Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science.

[4]  G. Molenberghs,et al.  Choosing Estimands in Clinical Trials: Putting the ICH E9(R1) Into Practice. , 2019, Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science.

[5]  D. van Klaveren,et al.  Risk stratification of sentinel node positive melanoma patients defines surgical management and adjuvant therapy treatment considerations , 2019, European Journal of Surgical Oncology.

[6]  L. Hazell,et al.  Analysis and reporting of adverse events in randomised controlled trials: a review , 2019, BMJ Open.

[7]  Benjamin Djulbegovic,et al.  Precision medicine for individual patients should use population group averages and larger, not smaller, groups , 2019, European journal of clinical investigation.

[8]  Tyler J. VanderWeele,et al.  Selecting Optimal Subgroups for Treatment Using Many Covariates , 2018, Epidemiology.

[9]  S. Schandelmaier EVALUATING THE CREDIBILITY OF EFFECT MODIFICATION CLAIMS IN RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AND META-ANALYSES , 2019 .

[10]  K. Furie,et al.  Scoring System to Optimize Pioglitazone Therapy After Stroke Based on Fracture Risk , 2019, Stroke.

[11]  Ewout Steyerberg,et al.  Personalized evidence based medicine: predictive approaches to heterogeneous treatment effects , 2018, British Medical Journal.

[12]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  How often can meta-analyses of individual-level data individualize treatment? A meta-epidemiologic study. , 2018, International journal of epidemiology.

[13]  Amit J. Shah,et al.  Use of High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin for the Exclusion of Inducible Myocardial Ischemia , 2018, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[14]  Catherine R. Lesko,et al.  Considerations when assessing heterogeneity of treatment effect in patient-centered outcomes research. , 2018, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[15]  Ewout W. Steyerberg,et al.  Big Data and Predictive Analytics: Recalibrating Expectations , 2018, JAMA.

[16]  R. Kravitz,et al.  Evaluation of person-level heterogeneity of treatment effects in published multiperson N-of-1 studies: systematic review and reanalysis , 2018, BMJ Open.

[17]  D. Scharfstein,et al.  Cautions as Regulators Move to End Exclusive Reliance on Intention to Treat , 2018, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[18]  Ewout W Steyerberg,et al.  The proposed 'concordance-statistic for benefit' provided a useful metric when modeling heterogeneous treatment effects. , 2018, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[19]  Matthew M. Chingos,et al.  The Review of Economics and Statistics , 2018 .

[20]  K. Furie,et al.  Targeting Pioglitazone Hydrochloride Therapy After Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack According to Pretreatment Risk for Stroke or Myocardial Infarction , 2017, JAMA neurology.

[21]  P. Noseworthy,et al.  Comparison of the CHA2DS2-VASc, CHADS2, HAS-BLED, ORBIT, and ATRIA Risk Scores in Predicting Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants-Associated Bleeding in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation. , 2017, The American journal of cardiology.

[22]  James M Robins,et al.  Per-Protocol Analyses of Pragmatic Trials. , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  Sanjay Basu,et al.  Benefit and harm of intensive blood pressure treatment: Derivation and validation of risk models using data from the SPRINT and ACCORD trials , 2017, PLoS medicine.

[24]  Sebastian Schneeweiss,et al.  When and How Can Real World Data Analyses Substitute for Randomized Controlled Trials? , 2017, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[25]  Jennifer L Krull,et al.  Advancing Personalized Medicine: Application of a Novel Statistical Method to Identify Treatment Moderators in the Coordinated Anxiety Learning and Management Study. , 2017, Behavior therapy.

[26]  Kristin L. Sainani,et al.  Evaluation of Evidence of Statistical Support and Corroboration of Subgroup Claims in Randomized Clinical Trials , 2017, JAMA internal medicine.

[27]  Deepak L. Bhatt,et al.  Derivation and validation of the predicting bleeding complications in patients undergoing stent implantation and subsequent dual antiplatelet therapy (PRECISE-DAPT) score: a pooled analysis of individual-patient datasets from clinical trials , 2017, The Lancet.

[28]  Gowri Raman,et al.  Tufts PACE Clinical Predictive Model Registry: update 1990 through 2015 , 2017, Diagnostic and Prognostic Research.

[29]  F. Davidoff Can Knowledge About Heterogeneity in Treatment Effects Help Us Choose Wisely? , 2017, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[30]  I. Lipkovich,et al.  Tutorial in biostatistics: data‐driven subgroup identification and analysis in clinical trials , 2017, Statistics in medicine.

[31]  Federico Rotolo,et al.  Identification of biomarker‐by‐treatment interactions in randomized clinical trials with survival outcomes and high‐dimensional spaces , 2016, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[32]  Eva Petkova,et al.  Generated effect modifiers (GEM's) in randomized clinical trials. , 2017, Biostatistics.

[33]  Zachary F. Meisel,et al.  Shared decision making in patients with low risk chest pain: prospective randomized pragmatic trial , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[34]  Issa J Dahabreh,et al.  Risk and treatment effect heterogeneity: re-analysis of individual participant data from 32 large clinical trials. , 2016, International journal of epidemiology.

[35]  Issa J Dahabreh,et al.  Using group data to treat individuals: understanding heterogeneous treatment effects in the age of precision medicine and patient-centred evidence. , 2016, International journal of epidemiology.

[36]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Sex based subgroup differences in randomized controlled trials: empirical evidence from Cochrane meta-analyses , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[37]  Mithat Gönen,et al.  A new concordance measure for risk prediction models in external validation settings , 2016, Statistics in medicine.

[38]  Richard D Riley,et al.  Explicit inclusion of treatment in prognostic modeling was recommended in observational and randomized settings. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[39]  Heenam Seo,et al.  Trends in endpoint selection in clinical trials of advanced breast cancer , 2016, Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology.

[40]  J. Spertus,et al.  Understanding physician-level barriers to the use of individualized risk estimates in percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2016, American heart journal.

[41]  Philip W Lavori,et al.  Integrating Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Research with Patient Care. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[42]  J. Spertus,et al.  Development and Validation of a Prediction Rule for Benefit and Harm of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Beyond 1 Year After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. , 2016, JAMA.

[43]  James E. Helmreich Regression Modeling Strategies with Applications to Linear Models, Logistic and Ordinal Regression and Survival Analysis (2nd Edition) , 2016 .

[44]  Ewout W Steyerberg,et al.  Net benefit approaches to the evaluation of prediction models, molecular markers, and diagnostic tests , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[45]  L. Eckardt,et al.  Drug-induced proarrhythmia: risk factors and electrophysiological mechanisms , 2016, Nature Reviews Cardiology.

[46]  James F Burke,et al.  Three simple rules to ensure reasonably credible subgroup analyses , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[47]  Yvonne Vergouwe,et al.  Estimates of absolute treatment benefit for individual patients required careful modeling of statistical interactions. , 2015, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[48]  James F Burke,et al.  Implications of Heterogeneity of Treatment Effect for Reporting and Analysis of Randomized Trials in Critical Care. , 2015, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[49]  Menggang Yu,et al.  Regularized outcome weighted subgroup identification for differential treatment effects , 2015, Biometrics.

[50]  Daniel J Sargent,et al.  The Fundamental Difficulty With Evaluating the Accuracy of Biomarkers for Guiding Treatment. , 2015, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[51]  Richard Simon,et al.  Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV, and NPV for Predictive Biomarkers. , 2015, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[52]  Jason P Fine,et al.  On the quantitative assessment of predictive biomarkers. , 2015, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[53]  J. Afilalo,et al.  Outcome Reporting in Cardiac Surgery Trials: Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal , 2015, Journal of the American Heart Association.

[54]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects , 2015, Science.

[55]  J. Spertus,et al.  Realizing the Potential of Clinical Risk Prediction Models: Where Are We Now and What Needs to Change to Better Personalize Delivery of Care? , 2015, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[56]  B. Wessler,et al.  Clinical Prediction Models for Cardiovascular Disease: Tufts Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Clinical Prediction Model Database , 2015, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[57]  D. Kent,et al.  The Lake Wobegon Effect: Why Most Patients Are at Below-Average Risk , 2015, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[58]  H. Weisberg,et al.  Post hoc subgroups in clinical trials: Anathema or analytics? , 2015, Clinical trials.

[59]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Deep Learning , 2015, Nature.

[60]  Richard D Riley,et al.  Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data: The PRISMA-IPD Statement , 2015 .

[61]  Niko Kaciroti,et al.  Simple subgroup approximations to optimal treatment regimes from randomized clinical trial data. , 2015, Biostatistics.

[62]  Wenting Cheng,et al.  Reader reaction to “A robust method for estimating optimal treatment regimes” by Zhang et al. (2012) , 2015, Biometrics.

[63]  Jeremy B Sussman,et al.  Improving diabetes prevention with benefit based tailored treatment: risk based reanalysis of Diabetes Prevention Program , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[64]  Gary S Collins,et al.  Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): Explanation and Elaboration , 2015, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[65]  G. Collins,et al.  Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): The TRIPOD Statement , 2015, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[66]  A. Philip Dawid,et al.  On individual risk , 2014, Synthese.

[67]  Ich Harmonised,et al.  INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR HARMONISATION OF TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PHARMACEUTICALS FOR HUMAN USE ICH HARMONISED GUIDELINE GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR CLINICAL STUDIES E8(R1) , 2019 .

[68]  Lee-Jen Wei,et al.  Treatment selections using risk-benefit profiles based on data from comparative randomized clinical trials with multiple endpoints. , 2015, Biostatistics.

[69]  Tyler J. VanderWeele,et al.  A Tutorial on Interaction , 2014 .

[70]  Zhiwei Zhang,et al.  The Use of Covariates and Random Effects in Evaluating Predictive Biomarkers Under a Potential Outcome Framework. , 2014, The annals of applied statistics.

[71]  P. Sandercock,et al.  Effect of treatment delay, age, and stroke severity on the effects of intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase for acute ischaemic stroke: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials | NOVA. The University of Newcastle's Digital Repository , 2014 .

[72]  Issa J Dahabreh,et al.  Can the learning health care system be educated with observational data? , 2014, JAMA.

[73]  Jennifer G. Robinson,et al.  2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines , 2014, Circulation.

[74]  L. Smeeth,et al.  Use of electronic healthcare records in large‐scale simple randomized trials at the point of care for the documentation of value‐based medicine , 2014, Journal of internal medicine.

[75]  Thomas Agoritsas,et al.  How to use a subgroup analysis: users' guide to the medical literature. , 2014, JAMA.

[76]  Richard D Riley,et al.  Developing and validating risk prediction models in an individual participant data meta-analysis , 2014, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[77]  J. Berger,et al.  A Bayesian Approach to Subgroup Identification , 2014, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[78]  David M. Kent,et al.  Using Internally Developed Risk Models to Assess Heterogeneity in Treatment Effects in Clinical Trials , 2014, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[79]  Lu Tian,et al.  A Simple Method for Detecting Interactions between a Treatment and a Large Number of Covariates , 2012, 1212.2995.

[80]  Yu-Ming Shen Assessing Treatment-Selection Markers using a Potential Outcomes Framework , 2014 .

[81]  Stephanie Kovalchik,et al.  Assessing heterogeneity of treatment effect in a clinical trial with the proportional interactions model , 2013, Statistics in medicine.

[82]  Ellen Frank,et al.  A novel approach for developing and interpreting treatment moderator profiles in randomized clinical trials. , 2013, JAMA psychiatry.

[83]  James M Robins,et al.  Randomized Trials Analyzed as Observational Studies , 2013, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[84]  Karel G M Moons,et al.  A framework for developing, implementing, and evaluating clinical prediction models in an individual participant data meta‐analysis , 2013, Statistics in medicine.

[85]  Ravi Varadhan,et al.  A framework for the analysis of heterogeneity of treatment effect in patient-centered outcomes research. , 2013, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[86]  Harlan M. Krumholz,et al.  A Historic Moment for Open Science: The Yale University Open Data Access Project and Medtronic , 2013, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[87]  S. Ghimire,et al.  Reporting Trends of Outcome Measures in Phase II and Phase III Trials Conducted in Advanced-Stage Non-small-cell Lung Cancer , 2013, Lung.

[88]  Helena Chmura Kraemer,et al.  Discovering, comparing, and combining moderators of treatment on outcome after randomized clinical trials: a parametric approach , 2013, Statistics in medicine.

[89]  Antonio Colombo,et al.  Anatomical and clinical characteristics to guide decision making between coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention for individual patients: development and validation of SYNTAX score II , 2013, The Lancet.

[90]  Richard D Riley,et al.  Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 4: Stratified medicine research , 2013, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[91]  Richard D Riley,et al.  Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 1: A framework for researching clinical outcomes , 2013, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[92]  Lu Tian,et al.  Effectively Selecting a Target Population for a Future Comparative Study , 2013, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[93]  E. Steyerberg,et al.  Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 2: Prognostic Factor Research , 2013, PLoS medicine.

[94]  E. Steyerberg,et al.  Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 3: Prognostic Model Research , 2013, PLoS medicine.

[95]  R. Herings,et al.  Risk of Fracture with Thiazolidinediones: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis , 2012, Front. Endocrinol..

[96]  Eric B. Laber,et al.  A Robust Method for Estimating Optimal Treatment Regimes , 2012, Biometrics.

[97]  R. Little,et al.  The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[98]  Stuart G Baker,et al.  Evaluating a new marker for risk prediction: decision analysis to the rescue. , 2012, Discovery medicine.

[99]  D. Kent,et al.  Risk models and patient-centered evidence: should physicians expect one right answer? , 2012, JAMA.

[100]  A. Vickers,et al.  Against quantiles: categorization of continuous variables in epidemiologic research, and its discontents , 2012, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[101]  Min Zhang,et al.  Estimating optimal treatment regimes from a classification perspective , 2012, Stat.

[102]  Ewout W Steyerberg,et al.  Estimating treatment effects for individual patients based on the results of randomised clinical trials , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[103]  John P. A. Ioannidis,et al.  Individualized Cost-Effectiveness Analysis , 2011, PLoS medicine.

[104]  T. VanderWeele,et al.  Interpretation of Subgroup Analyses in Randomized Trials: Heterogeneity Versus Secondary Interventions , 2011, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[105]  L. Tian,et al.  Analysis of randomized comparative clinical trial data for personalized treatment selections. , 2011, Biostatistics.

[106]  S. Murphy,et al.  PERFORMANCE GUARANTEES FOR INDIVIDUALIZED TREATMENT RULES. , 2011, Annals of statistics.

[107]  S. Murphy,et al.  Variable Selection for Qualitative Interactions. , 2011, Statistical methodology.

[108]  David M Kent,et al.  Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal , 2010, Trials.

[109]  Jeremy B Sussman,et al.  An IV for the RCT: using instrumental variables to adjust for treatment contamination in randomised controlled trials , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[110]  R. Riley,et al.  Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[111]  Gregory Y H Lip,et al.  Refining clinical risk stratification for predicting stroke and thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation using a novel risk factor-based approach: the euro heart survey on atrial fibrillation. , 2010, Chest.

[112]  Debashis Ghosh,et al.  Bayesian Variable Selection with Joint Modeling of Categorical and Survival Outcomes: An Application to Individualizing Chemotherapy Treatment in Advanced Colorectal Cancer , 2009, Biometrics.

[113]  S. Baker Putting risk prediction in perspective: relative utility curves. , 2009, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[114]  Mohamed Alfateh Badawy,et al.  Identification of children at very low risk of clinically-important brain injuries after head trauma: a prospective cohort study , 2009, The Lancet.

[115]  G. Bedogni,et al.  Clinical Prediction Models—a Practical Approach to Development, Validation and Updating , 2009 .

[116]  Nancy R Cook,et al.  Using relative utility curves to evaluate risk prediction , 2009, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A,.

[117]  M. Hanefeld,et al.  Rosiglitazone evaluated for cardiovascular outcomes in oral agent combination therapy for type 2 diabetes (RECORD): a multicentre, randomised, open-label trial , 2009, The Lancet.

[118]  P. Scardino,et al.  The clinically-integrated randomized trial: proposed novel method for conducting large trials at low cost , 2009, Trials.

[119]  C. Furberg,et al.  Long-term use of thiazolidinediones and fractures in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis , 2009, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[120]  J. Ioannidis Why Most Discovered True Associations Are Inflated , 2008, Epidemiology.

[121]  S. Pocock,et al.  More on subgroup analyses in clinical trials. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[122]  Patrick Royston,et al.  Multivariable Model-Building: A Pragmatic Approach to Regression Analysis based on Fractional Polynomials for Modelling Continuous Variables , 2008 .

[123]  James A Hanley,et al.  Profile-specific survival estimates: Making reports of clinical trials more patient-relevant , 2008, Clinical trials.

[124]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Effect Measures for Meta‒Analysis of Trials with Binary Outcomes , 2008 .

[125]  James M. Robins,et al.  Empirical and counterfactual conditions for sufficient cause interactions , 2008 .

[126]  Yingye Zheng,et al.  Integrating the predictiveness of a marker with its performance as a classifier. , 2007, American journal of epidemiology.

[127]  R. Garrick Progression Risk, Urinary Protein Excretion, and Treatment Effects of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors in Nondiabetic Kidney Disease , 2008 .

[128]  Stephen W Lagakos,et al.  Statistics in medicine--reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[129]  David M Kent,et al.  Limitations of applying summary results of clinical trials to individual patients: the need for risk stratification. , 2007, JAMA.

[130]  J. Robins,et al.  Four Types of Effect Modification: A Classification Based on Directed Acyclic Graphs , 2007, Epidemiology.

[131]  Andrew J Vickers,et al.  Method for evaluating prediction models that apply the results of randomized trials to individual patients , 2007, Trials.

[132]  Ralph B D'Agostino,et al.  Prediction of incident diabetes mellitus in middle-aged adults: the Framingham Offspring Study. , 2007, Archives of internal medicine.

[133]  James M Robins,et al.  The Identification of Synergism in the Sufficient-Component-Cause Framework , 2007, Epidemiology.

[134]  J. Pogue,et al.  Waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio as predictors of cardiovascular events: meta-regression analysis of prospective studies. , 2007, European heart journal.

[135]  I. White,et al.  Instrumental variables and interactions in the causal analysis of a complex clinical trial , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[136]  S Claiborne Johnston,et al.  Validation and refinement of scores to predict very early stroke risk after transient ischaemic attack , 2007, The Lancet.

[137]  D. Jacobs,et al.  Comparison of body mass index, waist circumference, and waist/hip ratio in predicting incident diabetes: a meta-analysis. , 2007, Epidemiologic reviews.

[138]  E. Elkin,et al.  Decision Curve Analysis: A Novel Method for Evaluating Prediction Models , 2006, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[139]  S. Lagakos The challenge of subgroup analyses--reporting without distorting. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[140]  David M Kent,et al.  Multivariable risk prediction can greatly enhance the statistical power of clinical trial subgroup analysis , 2006, BMC medical research methodology.

[141]  J. Habbema,et al.  Subgroup analyses in therapeutic cardiovascular clinical trials: are most of them misleading? , 2006, American heart journal.

[142]  D. Kent,et al.  Reporting clinical trial results to inform providers, payers, and consumers. , 2005, Health affairs.

[143]  L. Køber,et al.  Simple Risk Stratification at Admission to Identify Patients With Reduced Mortality From Primary Angioplasty , 2005, Circulation.

[144]  P. Poole‐Wilson,et al.  5-year outcome of an interventional strategy in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: the British Heart Foundation RITA 3 randomised trial , 2005, The Lancet.

[145]  S. Gutnikov,et al.  From subgroups to individuals: general principles and the example of carotid endarterectomy , 2005, The Lancet.

[146]  P. Rothwell Subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials: importance, indications, and interpretation , 2005, The Lancet.

[147]  Tomas Andersson,et al.  Calculating measures of biological interaction , 2005, European Journal of Epidemiology.

[148]  A. Ahlbom,et al.  Interaction: A word with two meanings creates confusion , 2005, European Journal of Epidemiology.

[149]  Richard L Kravitz,et al.  Evidence-based medicine, heterogeneity of treatment effects, and the trouble with averages. , 2004, The Milbank quarterly.

[150]  S. Senn Individual response to treatment: is it a valid assumption? , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[151]  B. Gage,et al.  Selecting Patients With Atrial Fibrillation for Anticoagulation: Stroke Risk Stratification in Patients Taking Aspirin , 2004, Circulation.

[152]  D. Kent,et al.  Tissue plasminogen activator was cost-effective compared to streptokinase in only selected patients with acute myocardial infarction. , 2004, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[153]  Scott Hamilton,et al.  Association of outcome with early stroke treatment: pooled analysis of ATLANTIS, ECASS, and NINDS rt-PA stroke trials , 2004, The Lancet.

[154]  Sara T Brookes,et al.  Subgroup analyses in randomized trials: risks of subgroup-specific analyses; power and sample size for the interaction test. , 2004, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[155]  Brian H Rowe,et al.  The Canadian C-spine rule versus the NEXUS low-risk criteria in patients with trauma. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.

[156]  Sunil J Rao,et al.  Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis , 2003 .

[157]  D. Kent,et al.  Are Some Patients Likely to Benefit From Recombinant Tissue-Type Plasminogen Activator for Acute Ischemic Stroke Even Beyond 3 Hours From Symptom Onset? , 2003, Stroke.

[158]  Harry P. Selker,et al.  Use of the electrocardiograph-based thrombolytic predictive instrument to assist thrombolytic and reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, clinical effectiveness trial☆ , 2002 .

[159]  S. Pocock,et al.  Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practiceand problems , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[160]  R. Califf,et al.  An independently derived and validated predictive model for selecting patients with myocardial infarction who are likely to benefit from tissue plasminogen activator compared with streptokinase. , 2002, The American journal of medicine.

[161]  J. Griffith,et al.  Use of the Electrocardiograph-Based Thrombolytic Predictive Instrument To Assist Thrombolytic and Reperfusion Therapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled, Clinical Effectiveness Trial , 2002, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[162]  S. Fowler,et al.  Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. , 2002 .

[163]  J. Sterne,et al.  Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. , 2001, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[164]  C. Schmid,et al.  Proteinuria as a modifiable risk factor for the progression of non-diabetic renal disease. , 2001, Kidney international.

[165]  G. Kovacs,et al.  Excluding Pulmonary Embolism at the Bedside without Diagnostic Imaging: Management of Patients with Suspected Pulmonary Embolism Presenting to the Emergency Department by Using a Simple Clinical Model and d-dimer , 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[166]  Martha J. Radford,et al.  Validation of Clinical Classification Schemes for Predicting Stroke: Results From the National Registry of Atrial Fibrillation , 2001 .

[167]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Predictive modeling and heterogeneity of baseline risk in meta-analysis of individual patient data. , 2001, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[168]  T. Peters,et al.  Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: quantifying the risks of false-positives and false-negatives. , 2001, Health technology assessment.

[169]  H Goldstein,et al.  A multilevel model framework for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes. , 2000, Statistics in medicine.

[170]  E. Antman,et al.  The TIMI risk score for unstable angina/non-ST elevation MI: A method for prognostication and therapeutic decision making. , 2000, JAMA.

[171]  I Olkin,et al.  Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: an empirical study of 125 meta-analyses. , 2000, Statistics in medicine.

[172]  C D Naylor,et al.  Subgroups, treatment effects, and baseline risks: some lessons from major cardiovascular trials. , 2000, American heart journal.

[173]  S. Assmann,et al.  Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials , 2000, The Lancet.

[174]  D A Follmann,et al.  A Multivariate Test of Interaction for Use in Clinical Trials , 1999, Biometrics.

[175]  P. Rothwell,et al.  Prediction of benefit from carotid endarterectomy in individual patients: a risk-modelling study. European Carotid Surgery Trialists' Collaborative Group. , 1999, Lancet.

[176]  J P Ornato,et al.  Use of the Acute Cardiac Ischemia Time-Insensitive Predictive Instrument (ACI-TIPI) To Assist with Triage of Patients with Chest Pain or Other Symptoms Suggestive of Acute Cardiac Ischemia: A Multicenter, Controlled Clinical Trial , 1998, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[177]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Heterogeneity of the baseline risk within patient populations of clinical trials: a proposed evaluation algorithm. , 1998, American journal of epidemiology.

[178]  D. Roden Mechanisms and management of proarrhythmia. , 1998, The American journal of cardiology.

[179]  J. Lau,et al.  The impact of high-risk patients on the results of clinical trials. , 1997, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[180]  A. Ahlbom,et al.  How to evaluate interaction between causes: a review of practices in cardiovascular epidemiology , 1996, Journal of internal medicine.

[181]  I. Tannock,et al.  False-positive results in clinical trials: multiple significance tests and the problem of unreported comparisons. , 1996, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[182]  C R Weinberg,et al.  How bad is categorization? , 1995, Epidemiology.

[183]  S Greenland,et al.  Avoiding power loss associated with categorization and ordinal scores in dose-response and trend analysis. , 1995, Epidemiology.

[184]  P. Rothwell,et al.  Can overall results of clinical trials be applied to all patients? , 1995, The Lancet.

[185]  A. Chant,et al.  Can overall results of clinical trials be applied to all patients? , 1995, Lancet.

[186]  G H Guyatt,et al.  A Consumer's Guide to Subgroup Analyses , 1992, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[187]  S. Zeger,et al.  On estimating efficacy from clinical trials. , 1991, Statistics in medicine.

[188]  R A Stallones,et al.  The use and abuse of subgroup analysis in epidemiological research. , 1987, Preventive medicine.

[189]  D P Byar,et al.  Assessing apparent treatment--covariate interactions in randomized clinical trials. , 1985, Statistics in medicine.

[190]  C. Furberg,et al.  What do subgroup analyses reveal about differential response to beta-blocker therapy? The Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial experience. , 1983, Circulation.

[191]  S Greenland,et al.  Concepts of interaction. , 1980, American journal of epidemiology.

[192]  D. Byar Why data bases should not replace randomized clinical trials. , 1980, Biometrics.

[193]  J. Kassirer,et al.  The threshold approach to clinical decision making. , 1980, The New England journal of medicine.