A Comparison of Subgroup Analyses in Grant Applications and Publications
A Comparison of Subgroup Analyses in Grant Applications and Publications
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/aje/kwr075
复制
发表时间：
2011-07-15
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
Rovers, Maroeska M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Boonacker, Chantal W. B.;Hoes, Arno W.;Rovers, Maroeska M.
在本文中，作者比较了资助申请及其相关出版物中概述的亚组分析。研究了荷兰卫生研究与发展组织（ZonMw）从2001年起在2010年3月1日之前完成的赠款。在79项资助申请中，50项（63%）是干预性研究，18项（23%）是诊断性研究，6项（8%）是预后性研究。在49份（62%）赠款申请和53份（67%）出版物中提到了小组。在79个项目中的20个（25%）中，出版物与赠款提案完全一致;也就是说，报告了赠款提案中预先指定的亚组，出版物中没有引入新的亚组分析。在149个预先规定的亚组中，46个（31%）在最终报告或科学出版物中报告，189个（76%）报告的亚组中有143个（76%）基于事后结果。对于出版物中77%的亚组分析，未提及这些分析是预先规定的还是事后分析的。很少报告亚组分析的理由和研究亚组的方法。作者得出结论，在亚组分析方面，资助申请和最终出版物之间存在很大差异。未报告的预先规定的亚组分析和报告的事后亚组分析都很常见。显然需要更多的指导。
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.