Pulse Brain · Growing Health Evidence Index
Peer-reviewed

Development of the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses

Stefan Schandelmaier, Matthias Briel, Ravi Varadhan, Christopher H. Schmid, Niveditha Devasenapathy, Rodney A. Hayward, Joel Gagnier, Michael Borenstein, Geert J. M. G. van der Heijden, Issa J Dahabreh, Xin Sun, Willi Sauerbrei, Michael Walsh, John P. A. Ioannidis, Lehana Thabane, Gordon H. Guyatt

Canadian Medical Association Journal · 2020

Read source ↗ All evidence

Summary

BACKGROUND: Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs examine effect modification (also called a subgroup effect or interaction), in which the effect of an intervention varies by another variable (e.g., age or disease severity). Assessing the credibility of an apparent effect modification presents challenges; therefore, we developed the Instrument for assessing the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN). METHODS: To develop ICEMAN, we established a detailed concept; identified candidate credibility considerations in a systematic survey of the literature; together with experts, performed a consensus study to identify key considerations and develop them into instrument items; and refined the instrument based on feedback from trial investigators, systema

Source type
Peer-reviewed study
DOI
10.1503/cmaj.200077
Catalogue ID
BFmokjob7i-7jt0r5
Pulse AI · ask about this record

Dig deeper with Pulse AI.

Pulse AI has read the whole catalogue. Ask about this record, its theme, or how the findings apply to UK farming and policy — every answer cites the underlying studies.

How does this finding apply in a UK context?→What are the most cited records on this topic?→