Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Randomized Experiments

Randomized Experiments

The randomization process involves assigning study participants randomly to experimental or control groups based on their probability of being equally assigned. Randomization is meant to eliminate selection bias and balance known and unknown confounding factors so that the control group is similar to the treatment group as much as possible. A computer program and a random number generator can be used to assign participants to groups in a way that minimizes bias.
Simple randomization
Simple...

Hazard Ratio

Hazard Ratio

The hazard ratio (HR) is a widely used measure in clinical trials to compare the risk of events, such as death or disease recurrence, between two groups over time. It reflects the ratio of hazard rates—the instantaneous risk of the event occurring—between a treatment group and a control group. This measure provides valuable insights into the relative effectiveness of a treatment by assessing how the risk of an event differs between the two groups.
For example, in a clinical trial...

Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups

Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups

Survival analysis is a cornerstone of medical research, used to evaluate the time until an event of interest occurs, such as death, disease recurrence, or recovery. Unlike standard statistical methods, survival analysis is particularly adept at handling censored data—instances where the event has not occurred for some participants by the end of the study or remains unobserved. To address these unique challenges, specialized techniques like the Kaplan-Meier estimator, log-rank test, and...

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

Biopharmaceutical studies constitute a vital field aiming to enhance drug delivery methods and refine therapeutic approaches, drawing upon diverse interdisciplinary knowledge. In research methodologies, the choice between controlled and non-controlled studies significantly influences the study's reliability and accuracy.
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...

Clinical Trials

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials are prospective experimental studies conducted on humans to determine the safety and efficacy of treatments, drugs, diet methods, and medical devices. Using statistics in clinical trials enables researchers to derive reasonable and accurate conclusions from the collected data, allowing them to make wise decisions in uncertain situations. In medical research, statistical methods are crucial for preventing errors and bias.
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...

Blinding

Blinding

Blinding is a commonly used method of not telling participants which treatment a subject is receiving. Blinding is a critical part of a randomized control trial or RCT. It reduces the bias that affects the results. In an RCT, blinding is used in the form of a placebo. A placebo effect occurs when untreated subjects falsely believe they have received the treatment and report improved symptoms. A placebo or a dummy treatment is administered to subjects to negate the bias caused by such an effect.

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

GRADE guidelines: 20. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences-inconsistency, imprecision, and other domains.

Journal of clinical epidemiology·2018

Same author

Corrigendum to "Advances in the GRADE approach to rate the certainty in estimates from a network meta-analysis" [J Clin Epidemiol 2018;93:36-44].

Journal of clinical epidemiology·2018

Same author

Debating the opioid guidelines: corrections.

Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien·2018

Same author

Debating the opioid guidelines: context.

Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien·2018

Same author

Patient Values and Preferences Regarding Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review.

Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.)·2018

Same author

The authors respond to "The 2017 Canadian opioid guideline: already time for an overhaul".

CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne·2018

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Oct 15, 2025

Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Published on: May 19, 2022

Evidence-based Urology: Subgroup Analysis in Randomized Controlled Trials.

Tuomas P Kilpeläinen¹, Kari A O Tikkinen², Gordon H Guyatt³

¹Department of Urology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.

European Urology Focus

|October 24, 2021

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

Subgroup analyses in clinical trials can be misleading. Researchers must rigorously assess potential treatment effect modifications to avoid misinterpreting results due to chance or bias.

Keywords:

Effect modification Evidence-based medicine Interaction Subgroup analyses

More Related Videos

Urethral Stricture Induction Followed by Buccal Mucosa Graft Urethroplasty in a Rat Model

Urethral Stricture Induction Followed by Buccal Mucosa Graft Urethroplasty in a Rat Model

Published on: April 28, 2023

Vessel-sparing Excision and Primary Anastomosis

Vessel-sparing Excision and Primary Anastomosis

Published on: January 7, 2019

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Oct 15, 2025

Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Published on: May 19, 2022

Urethral Stricture Induction Followed by Buccal Mucosa Graft Urethroplasty in a Rat Model

Urethral Stricture Induction Followed by Buccal Mucosa Graft Urethroplasty in a Rat Model

Published on: April 28, 2023

Vessel-sparing Excision and Primary Anastomosis

Vessel-sparing Excision and Primary Anastomosis

Published on: January 7, 2019

Area of Science:

Clinical Trials
Biostatistics
Epidemiology

Background:

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) frequently examine treatment effects across patient subgroups.
Subgroup analyses, or effect modification, assess if treatment efficacy varies by characteristics like age or disease severity.
Inappropriate claims of subgroup effects are common when true effect modification is unlikely.

Purpose of the Study:

To review common pitfalls in conducting and interpreting subgroup analyses in clinical trials.
To highlight criteria for credibly assessing effect modification.

Main Methods:

Review of literature on subgroup analyses in randomized controlled trials.
Discussion of the Instrument for Assessing the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) criteria.

Main Results:

Subgroup analyses are prone to misinterpretation, often attributed to chance rather than true effect modification.
Credible subgroup analyses require pre-specified hypotheses, supporting prior evidence, and statistical significance unlikely due to chance.
The ICEMAN criteria provide a framework for evaluating the validity of subgroup effect claims.

Conclusions:

Investigators must exercise caution when interpreting subgroup analyses in RCTs.
Rigorous application of criteria, such as those in ICEMAN, is essential for credible assessment of effect modification.
Avoiding inappropriate claims of subgroup effects enhances the reliability of clinical trial findings.