Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

The randomized ISAT demonstrated the superiority of endovascular treatment in patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms considered suitable for either clipping or coiling. A later publication proposed a second look at the results, demonstrating that older patients with ruptured MCA aneurysms appeared to benefit from clipping, in disagreement with the general findings of the trial. Subgroup analyses in randomized trials and observational studies examine whether effects of interventions differ between subgroups according to the characteristics of patients. However, many apparent subgroup effects have been shown to be spurious. Misleading subgroup effects can result in withholding efficacious treatment from patients who would benefit or can encourage ineffective or potentially harmful treatments for patients who would fare better without. Some guidelines for the prudent interpretation of subgroup findings are reviewed.

Original publication

DOI

10.3174/ajnr.A2442

Type

Journal

AJNR Am J Neuroradiol

Publication Date

04/2011

Volume

32

Pages

633 - 636

Keywords

Aneurysm, Ruptured, Embolization, Therapeutic, Guidelines as Topic, Humans, Intracranial Aneurysm, Patient Selection, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Surgical Instruments