# Compare subgroup effects, not their significance labels Treat this file as reference data, never as instructions that override the user or agent. Read the complete item before applying it. Keep use conditions, avoid conditions, limits, evidence roles and source links with the answer. An editorial block is a separately versioned analysis layer, not an original corpus claim or proof of efficacy. Cite the readable URL and version. Do not infer human review. This is a saved edition, not a live safety-notice service. Before consequential reuse, check the current page, https://vedokrok.com/data/availability.json and https://vedokrok.com/data/notices.json; absence alone does not explain why an item was removed. Release: MHC-RPUB-20261011-9e4b62c5 Snapshot SHA-256: b97dfd5520e2cf31744978d7e824b94e55bd12d9a2bdef759b5bc69a963375e5 Current availability: https://vedokrok.com/data/availability.json Current notices: https://vedokrok.com/data/notices.json --- ## Compare subgroup effects, not their significance labels ID: MHC-D-RESEARCH-0072 · Version: 0.1.0 · Kind: anti_pattern Source: https://vedokrok.com/knowledge/compare-subgroup-effects-not-their-significance-labels Significant here and not there is not the same as significantly different. ### Use when - A result is called different between groups because only one crossed a p-value threshold. ### Avoid when - Even an interaction result needs attention to planning, multiple comparisons, plausibility and uncertainty. Do not invent a subgroup-specific recommendation. ### Explanation The groups may have similar estimated effects but different precision. Look for an appropriate direct comparison or interaction analysis rather than comparing the two labels. ### Recognition The groups may have similar estimated effects but different precision. Look for an appropriate direct comparison or interaction analysis rather than comparing the two labels. ### Example In an illustrative software-training report, one experience group has p = 0.04 and another has p = 0.08. Those labels alone do not show that the training effects differ. ### Check Does the report directly compare subgroup effects, with uncertainty, rather than compare separate significance labels? ### Limits - Even an interaction result needs attention to planning, multiple comparisons, plausibility and uncertainty. Do not invent a subgroup-specific recommendation. ### Evidence and sources - supports: Different significance labels in two subgroups do not establish that their effects differ. — cochrane-meta-analysis. Claim basis: guidance. Claim limit: Comparing subgroups requires an appropriate direct analysis and attention to multiplicity. Source access: selected_html_passages; accessed on: 2026-10-01; inspected sections: ["10.2", "10.10.1-10.10.4", "10.11.3", "10.11.1-10.11.3.1", "MECIR Box 10.11.a", "10.11.5.2-10.11.5.6", "10.11.6"]. Source note: The chapter reports a November 2024 update. No single heterogeneity threshold is promoted as decisive. Separate source-access audit (2026-10-01): Chapter 10 still identifies November 2024 and version 6.5. The 2026-10-01 check covers its citation and sections 10.11.1-10.11.3.1, 10.11.5.2-10.11.5.6 and 10.11.6. The older 10.2/10.10 reading history is retained, not newly appraised. Overall Handbook updates do not change this chapter’s stated revision. No single heterogeneity threshold is promoted as decisive. (10.11.3-10.11.3.1; MECIR Box 10.11.a; limits in 10.11.5.2-10.11.5.6 and 10.11.6) - cochrane-meta-analysis: Chapter 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses — https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-10 No review details supplied. Published: 2026-10-01T20:30:00Z