Mark Simmonds1, Gavin Stewart2, Lesley Stewart3. 1. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, UK. Electronic address: mark.simmonds@york.ac.uk. 2. School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, UK. 3. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Individual participant data (IPD) systematic reviews and meta-analyses are often considered to be the gold standard for meta-analysis. In the ten years since the first review into the methodology and reporting practice of IPD reviews was published much has changed in the field. This paper investigates current reporting and statistical practice in IPD systematic reviews. METHODS: A systematic review was performed to identify systematic reviews that collected and analysed IPD. Data were extracted from each included publication on a variety of issues related to the reporting of IPD review process, and the statistical methods used. RESULTS: There has been considerable growth in the use of "one-stage" methods to perform IPD meta-analyses. The majority of reviews consider at least one covariate other than the primary intervention, either using subgroup analysis or including covariates in one-stage regression models. Random-effects analyses, however, are not often used. Reporting of review methods was often limited, with few reviews presenting a risk-of-bias assessment. Details on issues specific to the use of IPD were little reported, including how IPD were obtained; how data was managed and checked for consistency and errors; and for how many studies and participants IPD were sought and obtained. CONCLUSION: While the last ten years have seen substantial changes in how IPD meta-analyses are performed there remains considerable scope for improving the quality of reporting for both the process of IPD systematic reviews, and the statistical methods employed in them. It is to be hoped that the publication of the PRISMA-IPD guidelines specific to IPD reviews will improve reporting in this area.
INTRODUCTION: Individual participant data (IPD) systematic reviews and meta-analyses are often considered to be the gold standard for meta-analysis. In the ten years since the first review into the methodology and reporting practice of IPD reviews was published much has changed in the field. This paper investigates current reporting and statistical practice in IPD systematic reviews. METHODS: A systematic review was performed to identify systematic reviews that collected and analysed IPD. Data were extracted from each included publication on a variety of issues related to the reporting of IPD review process, and the statistical methods used. RESULTS: There has been considerable growth in the use of "one-stage" methods to perform IPD meta-analyses. The majority of reviews consider at least one covariate other than the primary intervention, either using subgroup analysis or including covariates in one-stage regression models. Random-effects analyses, however, are not often used. Reporting of review methods was often limited, with few reviews presenting a risk-of-bias assessment. Details on issues specific to the use of IPD were little reported, including how IPD were obtained; how data was managed and checked for consistency and errors; and for how many studies and participants IPD were sought and obtained. CONCLUSION: While the last ten years have seen substantial changes in how IPD meta-analyses are performed there remains considerable scope for improving the quality of reporting for both the process of IPD systematic reviews, and the statistical methods employed in them. It is to be hoped that the publication of the PRISMA-IPD guidelines specific to IPD reviews will improve reporting in this area.
Authors: Matthias W Lorenz; Negin Ashtiani Abdi; Frank Scheckenbach; Anja Pflug; Alpaslan Bülbül; Alberico L Catapano; Stefan Agewall; Marat Ezhov; Michiel L Bots; Stefan Kiechl; Andreas Orth Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Stefan Schandelmaier; Matthias Briel; Ravi Varadhan; Christopher H Schmid; Niveditha Devasenapathy; Rodney A Hayward; Joel Gagnier; Michael Borenstein; Geert J M G van der Heijden; Issa J Dahabreh; Xin Sun; Willi Sauerbrei; Michael Walsh; John P A Ioannidis; Lehana Thabane; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: CMAJ Date: 2020-08-10 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Nanhua Zhang; Eloise E Kaizar; Megan E Narad; Brad G Kurowski; Keith Owen Yeates; H Gerry Taylor; Shari L Wade Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2018-11-17 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Eun-Young Mun; Zhengyang Zhou; David Huh; Lin Tan; Dateng Li; Emily E Tanner-Smith; Scott T Walters; Mary E Larimer Journal: Prev Sci Date: 2022-08-17
Authors: Jia Huang Lin; Chi Pang Wen; Chao Qiang Jiang; Jian-Min Yuan; Chien Jen Chen; Sai Yin Ho; Wayne Gao; Weisen Zhang; Renwei Wang; Yin-Chu Chien; Lin Xu; Xifeng Wu; Ya Li Jin; Woon-Puay Koh; Wan-Lun Hsu; Feng Zhu; Christopher Wen; Tong Zhu; June Han Lee; Zhi-Ming Mai; Maria Li Lung; Tai-Hing Lam Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2021-07-09 Impact factor: 7.196