The effects of the number, size, and location of the intrauterine pathology as well as the relationship between the timing of the hysteroscopy and subsequent fertility treatment should be addressed by predefined and sensible subgroup analyses.
This is a common problem for subgroup analyses, and we should therefore be cautious about the interpretation of the data of this sensible predefined subgroup analysis.
Given that cost-effectiveness varies between patient subgroups, it is sensible for innovators to calculate a menu of prices to determine the patient group in which their intervention is most likely to be cost-effective [ 10, 11].
It seems sensible that interventions in this subgroup of patients need to be extended with increased assistance, allocation of caregivers, cognitive training, and environmental manipulations, i.e., by simplifying tasks, providing external cues, or prompts to initiate action [ 74].
While pooling data on overall survival of all participating patients did not appear sensible, we conducted sensitivity meta-analysis of subgroups to explain heterogeneity and of subgroups reported in individual studies.
As these data can help tailor healthcare decisions to individual patients, a modest number of prespecified subgroup analyses can be sensible.
The SDD data illustrated here may provide guidance for the development of sensible cut-off points for any planned subgroup analyses.
The subgroups have an order allowing a sensible check of the continuous function postulated for the treatment effect.
Also, in order to be economically sensible, interventions need to be delivered to specific groups or subgroups according to the potentially achievable results.
Group II subgroups in Arabidopsis, rice and grapevine were comparable in size, whereas a sensible expansion was detected for poplar Group II-d and tomato group II-e.
