Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35102244›Full record

ArticleEye (London, England)2022

When to believe a subgroup analysis: revisiting the 11 criteria.

Forough Farrokhyar, Philip Skorzewski, Mark R Phillips, Sunir J Garg, David Sarraf, Lehana Thabane, Mohit Bhandari, Varun Chaudhary, Retina Evidence Trials InterNational Alliance (R.E.T.I.N.A.) Study Group

Abstract readEditorial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Eye (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. The credibility of subgroup analyses reported in stroke trials is low: A systematic review.International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society · 2023
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The hazards of chasing subgroups in neutral stroke trials.Neurological research and practice · 2025
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Forough FarrokhyarDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Philip SkorzewskiDepartment of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Mark R PhillipsDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0923-261X
Sunir J GargMid Atlantic Retina, The Retina Service of Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
David SarrafRetinal Disorders and Ophthalmic Genetics, Stein Eye Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Lehana ThabaneDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0355-9734
Mohit BhandariDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9608-4808
Varun ChaudharyDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. vchaudh@mcmaster.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-9988-4146
Retina Evidence Trials InterNational Alliance (R.E.T.I.N.A.) Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Identifiers

PMID35102244
PMCPMC9582008

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.