ArticlePloS one2025
Systematic evaluation of subgroup analyses of inhaled treprostinil in pulmonary hypertension due to interstitial lung disease.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Group 3 Pulmonary Hypertension: Mechanistic Insights, Clinical Challenges, and Evolving Therapies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe INCREASE trial introduced a novel therapeutic option for Pulmonary Hypertension caused by Interstitial Lung Disease. Subsequently to this trial, several subgroup analyses were conducted, aiming to explore specific effects within subgroups.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the subgroup analyses performed in the INCREASE trial and to identify potentially reliable subgroup effects.
methodsA methodological assessment of the subgroup analyses was performed. Claims of subgroup effect were evaluated using three different tools: Sun, X et al. 2012, Gil-Sierra, M.D et al. 2020, and Schandelmaier, S et al. 2020. Additionally, all statistically significant subgroup effects that were not claimed by the authors were evaluated.
resultsFive claims of subgroup effect were identified; none of them achieved statistical significance when assessed using an interaction test. The evaluation conducted with the three tools consistently yielded very low credibility for all the claims. During the assessment, a statistically significant subgroup effect of moderate credibility was identified, which the authors did not claim: iTre appeared to improve exercise capacity exclusively in patients with Pulmonary Vascular Resistance ⋝ 4 WUs.
conclusionsDue to methodological limitations, the credibility of subgroup claims from the authors of the INCREASE was lacking and, therefore, should not be relied upon to inform decisions on an individual basis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.