Ewoud Schuit1,2,3,4, Alvin H Li1,5, John P A Ioannidis1,2. 1. Departments of Medicine, of Health Research and Policy, of Biomedical Data Science and of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 2. Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 3. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 5. Clinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One of the claimed main advantages of individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) is that it allows assessment of subgroup effects based on individual-level participant characteristics, and eventually stratified medicine. In this study, we evaluated the conduct and results of subgroup analyses in IPDMA. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to 31 December 2014. We included papers if they described an IPDMA based on randomized clinical trials that investigated a therapeutic intervention on human subjects and in which the meta-analysis was preceded by a systematic literature search. We extracted data items related to subgroup analysis and subgroup differences (subgroup-treatment interaction p < 0.05). RESULTS: Overall, 327 IPDMAs were eligible. A statistically significant subgroup-treatment interaction for the primary outcome was reported in 102 (36.6%) of 279 IPDMAs that reported at least one subgroup analysis. This corresponded to 187 different statistically significant subgroup-treatment interactions: 124 for an individual-level subgrouping variable (in 76 IPDMAs) and 63 for a group-level subgrouping variable (in 36 IPDMAs). Of the 187, only 7 (3.7%; 6 individual and 1 group-level subgrouping variables) had a large difference between strata (standardized effect difference d ≥ 0.8). Among the 124 individual-level statistically significant subgroup differences, the IPDMA authors claimed that 42 (in 21 IPDMAs) should lead to treating the subgroups differently. None of these 42 had d ≥ 0.8. CONCLUSIONS: Availability of individual-level data provides statistically significant interactions for relative treatment effects in about a third of IPDMAs. A modest number of these interactions may offer opportunities for stratified medicine decisions.
BACKGROUND: One of the claimed main advantages of individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) is that it allows assessment of subgroup effects based on individual-level participant characteristics, and eventually stratified medicine. In this study, we evaluated the conduct and results of subgroup analyses in IPDMA. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to 31 December 2014. We included papers if they described an IPDMA based on randomized clinical trials that investigated a therapeutic intervention on human subjects and in which the meta-analysis was preceded by a systematic literature search. We extracted data items related to subgroup analysis and subgroup differences (subgroup-treatment interaction p < 0.05). RESULTS: Overall, 327 IPDMAs were eligible. A statistically significant subgroup-treatment interaction for the primary outcome was reported in 102 (36.6%) of 279 IPDMAs that reported at least one subgroup analysis. This corresponded to 187 different statistically significant subgroup-treatment interactions: 124 for an individual-level subgrouping variable (in 76 IPDMAs) and 63 for a group-level subgrouping variable (in 36 IPDMAs). Of the 187, only 7 (3.7%; 6 individual and 1 group-level subgrouping variables) had a large difference between strata (standardized effect difference d ≥ 0.8). Among the 124 individual-level statistically significant subgroup differences, the IPDMA authors claimed that 42 (in 21 IPDMAs) should lead to treating the subgroups differently. None of these 42 had d ≥ 0.8. CONCLUSIONS: Availability of individual-level data provides statistically significant interactions for relative treatment effects in about a third of IPDMAs. A modest number of these interactions may offer opportunities for stratified medicine decisions.
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: David M Kent; David van Klaveren; Jessica K Paulus; Ralph D'Agostino; Steve Goodman; Rodney Hayward; John P A Ioannidis; Bray Patrick-Lake; Sally Morton; Michael Pencina; Gowri Raman; Joseph S Ross; Harry P Selker; Ravi Varadhan; Andrew Vickers; John B Wong; Ewout W Steyerberg Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2019-11-12 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Paolo Fusar-Poli; Christoph U Correll; Celso Arango; Michael Berk; Vikram Patel; John P A Ioannidis Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2021-06 Impact factor: 79.683
Authors: Patrick Liu; John P A Ioannidis; Joseph S Ross; Sanket S Dhruva; Anita T Luxkaranayagam; Vasilis Vasiliou; Joshua D Wallach Journal: BMC Med Date: 2019-10-21 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Stefan Schandelmaier; Andreas M Schmitt; Amanda K Herbrand; Dominik Glinz; Hannah Ewald; Matthias Briel; Gordon H Guyatt; Lars G Hemkens; Benjamin Kasenda Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-05-30 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Richard D Riley; Thomas P A Debray; David Fisher; Miriam Hattle; Nadine Marlin; Jeroen Hoogland; Francois Gueyffier; Jan A Staessen; Jiguang Wang; Karel G M Moons; Johannes B Reitsma; Joie Ensor Journal: Stat Med Date: 2020-04-30 Impact factor: 2.373