Subgroup analyses may be misleading - Students 4 Best Evidence

Findings based on results for subgroups of people within a treatment comparison may be misleading. These analyses are often poorly planned and reported.

Subgroup analyses may be misleading - Students 4 Best Evidence

IZA World of Labor - Using instrumental variables to establish causality

A values-aligned intervention fosters growth mindset–supportive teaching and reduces inequality in educational outcomes

Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research - GENE V GLASS, 1976

Dear Education Data Geeks: Stop Obsessing Over Subgroup Analyses

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic

Primary and Secondary Outcome Reporting in Randomized Trials: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Meta-analysis course: part 5: Subgroup analysis & Meta-regression

Rigorous and rapid evidence assessment in digital health with the evidence DEFINED framework

Interpretation of subgroup analyses in systematic reviews: A tutorial - Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health

Heterogeneity: what is it and why does it matter? - Students 4 Best Evidence

Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 4. Assessing heterogeneity of primary studies in systematic reviews and whether to combine their results

The problems with systematic reviews: a living systematic review - ScienceDirect

Subgroup analyses may be misleading, If conclusions are made that a treatment is effective based on subgroup analysis alone, those conclusions may well be misleading. Read the full

The 5 min meta-analysis: understanding how to read and interpret a forest plot