Subgroup analyses did not yield significant differences in program effects on any of the outcome variables at the 12 - month follow - up.
Subgroup analyses did not reveal any differences in the risk estimates based on the type of studies or the measurement of the exposure.
Not exact matches
Because our
subgroup analyses (reported below)
did not generally explain heterogeneity found in specific primary outcomes, we discuss additional sources of heterogeneity below and in the discussion section of the review.
In the
subgroup analysis in which we excluded women whose labour was induced by outpatient administration of prostaglandins, amniotomy or both (118 [4.1 %] of women in the home - birth group, 344 [7.2 %] of those who planned a midwife - attended hospital birth and 778 [14.6 %] of those who planned a physician - attended hospital birth), the relative risks of obstetric interventions and adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes
did not change significantly.
The confidence intervals for this
subgroup do not overlap with any other
subgroup, but within - group heterogeneity for all
subgroups remains very high, and we advise caution when interpreting this result (
Analysis 6.2; test for
subgroup differences: Chi ² = 13.78, df = 3 (P = 0.003), I ² = 78.2 %).
We had planned to carry out formal
subgroup analysis by whether support was proactive or reactive, but due to the fact that most interventions included at least one scheduled contact (proactive), we
did not think that this way of categorising studies would shed light on types of interventions that were effective or ineffective.
For all
subgroup analyses, the covariate chosen
does little to explain the high heterogeneity; most within - group heterogeneity remains high.
(By including people who had vascular disease, the Lancet meta -
analysis overestimated statins» benefits: a
subgroup analysis reveals that among people who
did not have vascular disease, statins only reduced the absolute risk of a cardiovascular event by 0.4 percent per year.)
Even though the primary results of a related study investigating the effects of music therapy with children with autism,
do not show that music therapy works better than other therapies,
subgroup analysis identified that children with childhood autism or coexisting intellectual disability improve to a greater extend from music therapy than children with another autism diagnosis.
A
subgroup analysis of the women who
did not take their own calcium supplements revealed that supplementing as part of the trial
did reduce hip fracture risk by 30 percent.
«A
subgroup analysis that combines data from children in both the single - and multiple - dose studies demonstrated a mean 5 point increase in muscle function score in children who received at least 9 mg of ISIS - SMNRx between the ages of two and 10 who
did not have severe scoliosis or baseline HFMSE scores at the extreme low or high ends of the scale.
The post-hoc
subgroup analyses by sex and baseline triglyceride levels
did not show significant effects.
The Republic «s «AZ Fact Check» conducted its own
analysis and found that charter students in the seven racial and ethnic
subgroups did indeed outperform the state average.
The small number of studies in the respective meta -
analyses did not allow for
subgroup analyses.
The sum of participants in the treatment groups (intervention plus CAU) is smaller than the number of participants in each
subgroup because some participants
did not complete the post or the follow - up assessment and could therefore not be included in the main
analysis.
We
do not anticipate undertaking any
subgroup analyses in this pilot trial.