A comparison of subgroup analyses in grant applications and publications.
American journal of epidemiology, 174 (2):
219-25 (July 2011)6263<m:linebreak></m:linebreak>JID: 7910653; aheadofprint;<m:linebreak></m:linebreak>Comparacions múltiples.DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwr075
Abstract
In this paper, the authors compare subgroup analyses as outlined in grant applications and their related publications. Grants awarded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) from 2001 onward that were finalized before March 1, 2010, were studied. Of the 79 grant proposals, 50 (63%) were intervention studies, 18 (23%) were diagnostic studies, and 6 (8%) were prognostic studies. Subgroups were mentioned in 49 (62%) grant applications and in 53 (67%) publications. In 20 of the 79 projects (25%), the publications were completely in agreement with the grant proposal; that is, subgroups that were prespecified in the grant proposal were reported and no new subgroup analyses were introduced in the publications. Of the 149 prespecified subgroups, 46 (31%) were reported in the final report or scientific publications, and 143 of the 189 (76%) reported subgroups were based on post-hoc findings. For 77% of the subgroup analyses in the publications, there was no mention of whether these were prespecified or post hoc. Justification for subgroup analysis and methods to study subgroups were rarely reported. The authors conclude that there is a large discrepancy between grant applications and final publications regarding subgroup analyses. Both nonreporting prespecified subgroup analyses and reporting post-hoc subgroup analyses are common. More guidance is clearly needed.