Reporting on methods of subgroup analysis in clinical trials: a survey of four scientific journals

Results of subgroup analysis (SA) reported in randomized clinical trials (RCT) cannot be adequately interpreted without information about the methods used in the study design and the data analysis. Our aim was to show how often inaccurate or incomplete reports occur. First, we selected eight methodological aspects of SA on the basis of their importance to a reader in determining the confidence that should be placed in the author's conclusions regarding such analysis. Then, we reviewed the current practice of reporting these methodological aspects of SA in clinical trials in four leading journals, i.e., the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Lancet, and the American Journal of Public Health. Eight consecutive reports from each journal published after July 1, 1998 were included. Of the 32 trials surveyed, 17 (53%) had at least one SA. Overall, the proportion of RCT reporting a particular methodological aspect ranged from 23 to 94%. Information on whether the SA preceded/followed the analysis was reported in only 7 (41%) of the studies. Of the total possible number of items to be reported, NEJM, JAMA, Lancet and AJPH clearly mentioned 59, 67, 58 and 72%, respectively. We conclude that current reporting of SA in RCT is incomplete and inaccurate. The results of such SA may have harmful effects on treatment recommendations if accepted without judicious scrutiny. We recommend that editors improve the reporting of SA in RCT by giving authors a list of the important items to be reported.

Comparison of methods for urinary albumin determination in patients with type 1 diabetes

We tested the correlation of the albumin-to-creatinine ratio (A/C) in an early-morning urine sample, measured with a commercial kit (DCA 2000®), with the conventional immunoturbidimetric determination in the laboratory and with overnight albumin excretion rate (reference method). Fifty-five type 1 diabetic adolescents had their first-morning urine collected on the 1st and 8th day of the period. Urinary albumin and creatinine were determined immediately using the DCA 2000® kit. Samples were also stored for laboratory analysis. To evaluate the correlation between early-morning urinary A/C ratio and overnight albumin excretion rate, 16 subjects had a timed overnight urine collection. A/C ratios determined with the DCA 2000® kit and by the laboratory method were 13.1 ± 20.5 and 20.4 ± 46.3 mg/g, respectively. A/C results by both methods proved to be strongly correlated (r = 0.98, P<0.001). DCA 2000®-determined A/C showed 50% sensitivity and 100% specificity when compared to the reference method. Spot urinary A/C of the subset of 16 subjects significantly correlated with their overnight albumin excretion rate (r = 0.98, P<0.001). Intraindividual variation ranged from 17 to 32% and from 9 to 63% for A/C and overnight albumin excretion rate, respectively. In conclusion, an early-morning specimen should be used instead of timed overnight urine and the A/C ratio is an accurate, reliable and easily determined parameter for the screening of diabetic nephropathy. Immediate measurement of the A/C ratio is feasible using the DCA 2000® kit. Intraindividual variability indicates the need for repeated determinations to confirm microalbuminuria and the diagnosis of incipient diabetic nephropathy.