Xin Sun

BACKGROUND: Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs examine effect modification (also called a subgroup effect or interaction), in which the effect of an intervention varies by another variable (e.g., age or disease severity). Assessing the credibility of an apparent effect modification presents challenges; therefore, we developed the Instrument for assessing the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN). METHODS: To develop ICEMAN, we established a detailed concept; identified candidate credibility considerations in a systematic survey of the literature; together with experts, performed a consensus study to identify key considerations and develop them into instrument items; and refined the instrument based on feedback from trial investigators, systematic review authors and journal editors, who applied drafts of ICEMAN to published claims of effect modification. RESULTS: The final instrument consists of a set of preliminary considerations, core questions (5 for RCTs, 8 for meta-analyses) with 4 response options, 1 optional item for additional considerations and a rating of credibility on a visual analogue scale ranging from very low to high. An accompanying manual provides rationales, detailed instructions and examples from the literature. Seventeen potential users tested ICEMAN; their suggestions improved the user-friendliness of the instrument. INTERPRETATION: The Instrument for assessing the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses offers explicit guidance for investigators, systematic reviewers, journal editors and others considering making a claim of effect modification or interpreting a claim made by others.

Clinicians, when trying to apply trial results to patient care, need to individualize patient care and, potentially, manage patients based on results of subgroup analyses. Apparently compelling subgroup effects often prove spurious, and guidance is needed to differentiate credible from less credible subgroup claims. We therefore provide 5 criteria to use when assessing the validity of subgroup analyses: (1) Can chance explain the apparent subgroup effect; (2) Is the effect consistent across studies; (3) Was the subgroup hypothesis one of a small number of hypotheses developed a priori with direction specified; (4) Is there strong preexisting biological support; and (5) Is the evidence supporting the effect based on within- or between-study comparisons. The first 4 criteria are applicable to individual studies or systematic reviews, the last only to systematic reviews of multiple studies. These criteria will help clinicians deciding whether to use subgroup analyses to guide their patient care.

Acute ischemic stroke is a common cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Thrombolysis with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator and endovascular thrombectomy are the main revascularization therapies for acute ischemic stroke. However, ischemia-reperfusion injury after revascularization therapy can result in worsening outcomes. Among all possible pathological mechanisms of ischemia-reperfusion injury, free radical damage (mainly oxidative/nitrosative stress injury) has been found to play a key role in the process. Free radicals lead to protein dysfunction, DNA damage, and lipid peroxidation, resulting in cell death. Additionally, free radical damage has a strong connection with inducing hemorrhagic transformation and cerebral edema, which are the major complications of revascularization therapy, and mainly influencing neurological outcomes due to the disruption of the blood-brain barrier. In order to get a better clinical prognosis, more and more studies focus on the pharmaceutical and nonpharmaceutical neuroprotective therapies against free radical damage. This review discusses the pathological mechanisms of free radicals in ischemia-reperfusion injury and adjunctive neuroprotective therapies combined with revascularization therapy against free radical damage.