Skip to main content

Table 2 Assessment of credibility of subgroup difference based on ICEMAN

From: Comparing the effect of bone marrow mono-nuclear cells with mesenchymal stem cells after acute myocardial infarction on improvement of left ventricular function: a meta-analysis of clinical trials

Variable

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Q6

Q7

Q8

Overall interpretation

LVEF

Completely between

NA

Large

Definitely yes

Chance a very likely explanation (0.1)

Definitely yes

Definitely yes

NA

Maximum usually moderate

Likely effect modification. Use separate effects for each subgroup but note remaining uncertainty

LVEF (sensitivity analysis)

Completely between

NA

Rather small or unclear

Definitely yes

Chance a very likely explanation (0.06)

Definitely yes

Definitely yes

NA

Maximum usually low

Likely no effect modification. Use overall effect for each subgroup but note remaining uncertainty

LVESV

Completely between

NA

Rather large

Definitely no

Chance a very likely explanation (0.92)

Definitely yes

Definitely yes

NA

Maximum usually low

Likely no effect modification. Use overall effect for each subgroup but note remaining uncertainty

LVESV (sensitivity analysis)

Completely between

NA

Very small

Definitely yes

Chance a very likely explanation (0.15)

Definitely yes

Definitely yes

NA

Maximum usually low

Likely no effect modification. Use overall effect for each subgroup but note remaining uncertainty

LVEDV

Completely between

NA

Rather large

Definitely no

Chance a very likely explanation (0.84)

Definitely yes

Definitely yes

NA

Maximum usually low

Likely no effect modification. Use overall effect for each subgroup but note remaining uncertainty

LVEDV (sensitivity analysis)

Completely between

NA

Very small

Definitely yes

Chance may not explain (0.007)

Definitely yes

Definitely yes

NA

Maximum usually moderate

Likely effect modification. Use separate effects for each subgroup but note remaining uncertainty

Hospitalization

Completely between

NA

Rather large

Definitely no

Chance a very likely explanation (0.26)

Definitely yes

Definitely yes

NA

Maximum usually low

Likely no effect modification. Use overall effect for each subgroup but note remaining uncertainty

  1. Q1, Is the analysis of effect modification based on comparison within rather than between trials? Q2, for within-trial comparisons, is the effect modification similar from trial to trial? Q3, for between-trial comparisons, is the number of trials large? Q4, Was the direction of the effect modification correctly hypothesized priori? Q5, does a test for interaction suggest that chance is an unlikely explanation of the apparent effect modification? Q6, Did the authors test only a small number of effect modifiers? Q7, Did the authors use a random effects model? Q8, If the effect modifier is a continuous variable, were arbitrary cut points avoided?