Dataset Information

Distribution and epidemiological characteristics of published individual patient data meta-analyses.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Individual patient data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) prevail as the gold standard in clinical evaluations. We investigated the distribution and epidemiological characteristics of published IPDMA articles. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: IPDMA articles were identified through comprehensive literature searches from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library. Two investigators independently conducted article identification, data classification and extraction. Data related to the article characteristics were collected and analyzed descriptively. A total of 829 IPDMA articles indexed until 9 August 2012 were identified. An average of 3.7 IPDMA articles was published per year. Malignant neoplasms (267 [32.2%]) and circulatory diseases (179 [21.6%]) were the most frequently occurring topics. On average, each IPDMA article included a median of 8 studies (Interquartile range, IQR 5 to 15) involving 2,563 patients (IQR 927 to 8,349). Among 829 IPDMA articles, 229 (27.6%) did not perform a systematic search to identify related studies. In total, 207 (25.0%) sought and included individual patient data (IPD) from the "grey literature". Only 496 (59.8%) successfully obtained IPD from all identified studies. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The number of IPDMA articles exhibited an increasing trend over the past few years and mainly focused on cancer and circulatory diseases. Our data indicated that literature searches, including grey literature and data availability were inconsistent among different IPDMA articles. Possible biases may arise. Thus, decision makers should not uncritically accept all IPDMAs.

SUBMITTER: Huang Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4063791 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Distribution and epidemiological characteristics of published individual patient data meta-analyses.

Huang Yafang Y Mao Chen C Yuan Jinqiu J Yang Zuyao Z Di Mengyang M Tam Wilson Wai-san WW Tang Jinling J

PloS one 20140619 6

<h4>Background</h4>Individual patient data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) prevail as the gold standard in clinical evaluations. We investigated the distribution and epidemiological characteristics of published IPDMA articles.<h4>Methodology/principal findings</h4>IPDMA articles were identified through comprehensive literature searches from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library. Two investigators independently conducted article identification, data classification and extraction. Data related to the articl ...[more]

PMID: 24945406

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCompared to subgroup analyses in a single study or in a traditional meta-analysis, an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) offers important potential advantages. We studied how many IPDMAs report on surgical interventions, how many of those surgical IPDMAs perform subgroup analyses, and whether these subgroup analyses have changed decision-making in clinical practice.MethodsSurgical IPDMAs were identified using a comprehensive literature search. The last search was conducted on 24 April 2012. For each IPDMA included, we obtained information using a standardized data extraction form, and the quality of reporting was assessed. We also checked whether results were implemented in clinical guidelines.ResultsOf all 583 identified IPDMAs, 22 (4%) reported on a surgical intervention. Eighteen (82%) of these IPDMAs presented subgroup analyses. Subgroups were mainly based on patient and disease characteristics. The median number of reported subgroup analyses was 3.5 (IQR 1.25-6.5). Statistical methods for subgroup analyses were mentioned in 11 (61%) surgical IPDMAs.Eleven (61%) of the 18 IPDMAs performing subgroup analyses reported a significant overall effect estimate, whereas six (33%) reported a non-significant one. Of the IPDMAs that reported non-significant overall results, three IPDMAs (50%) reported significant results in one or more subgroup analyses. Results remained significant in one or more subgroups in eight of the IPDMAs (73%) that reported a significant overall result.Eight (44%) of the 18 significant subgroups appeared to be implemented in clinical guidelines. The quality of reporting among surgical IPDMAs varied from low to high quality.ConclusionMany of the surgical IPDMAs performed subgroup analyses, but overall treatment effects were more often emphasized than subgroup effects. Although, most surgical IPDMAs included in the present study have only recently been published, about half of the significant subgroups were already implemented in treatment guidelines.

Project description:To compare the characteristics, quality and treatment effects of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) by individual patient data (IPD) availability, in trials eligible for 18 IPD meta-analyses (MA).Trial characteristics, risk of bias (RoB) and hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival were extracted from IPD-MA publications and/or RCTs publications. Data for the RoB assessment were extracted for a subset of 73 RCTs. Two investigators blinded to whether IPD was available or not evaluated the RoB for these trials. Treatment effects were compared using ratios of global HRs (RHRs) of IPD-unavailable trials and IPD-available trials. RHR were pooled using a fixed-effect model.We examined the IPD availability for each trial eligible for each IPD-MA; when the IPD was not available for a trial, we used information from published sources.We selected all published IPD-MAs conducted at Gustave Roussy and the RCTs eligible for each.349 RCTs (73?018 patients) from 18 MAs were eligible: 60 RCTs (5890 patients) had unavailable IPD and 289 RCTs (67?128 patients) had available IPD. The main reason for IPD unavailability was data loss by investigators. IPD-unavailable trials were smaller (p<0.001), more often monocentric (p<0.001) and non-international (p=0.0004) than IPD-available trials. Geographical areas differed (p=0.054) between IPD-unavailable IPD-available trials. RoB was higher in IPD-unavailable RCTs for random sequence generation (p=0.007) and allocation concealment (p=0.006). The HR and 95% confidence interval (CI) for overall survival were extractable from publications in 23/60 IPD-unavailable trials included in 10 different MAs. Treatment effects were significantly greater for IPD-unavailable trials compared with IPD-available trials (RHR=0.86 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.98)).IPD-unavailable RCTs were significantly different from IPD-available RCTs in terms of trial characteristics and were at greater RoB. IPD-unavailable RCTs had a significantly greater treatment effect.

Project description:Introduction: Individual participant data meta-analyses (IPD-MAs) include the raw data from relevant randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and involve secondary analyses of the data. Performed since the late 1990s, ~50 such meta-analyses have been carried out in psychiatry, mostly in the field of treatment. IPD-MAs are particularly relevant for three objectives: (1) evaluation of the average effect of an intervention by combining effects from all included trials, (2) evaluation of the heterogeneity of an intervention effect and sub-group analyses to approach personalised psychiatry, (3) mediation analysis or surrogacy evaluation to replace a clinical (final) endpoint for the evaluation of new treatments with intermediate or surrogate endpoints. The objective is to describe the interest and the steps of an IPD-MA method applied to the field of psychiatric therapeutic research. Method: The method is described in three steps. First, the identification of the relevant trials with an explicit description of the inclusion/exclusion criteria for the RCT to be incorporated in the IPD-MA and a definition of the intervention, the population, the context and the relevant points (outcomes or moderators). Second, the data management with the standardisation of collected variables and the evaluation and the assessment of the risk-of-bias for each included trial and of the global risk. Third, the statistical analyses and their interpretations, depending on the objective of the meta-analysis. All steps are illustrated with examples in psychiatry for treatment issues, excluding study protocols. Conclusion: The meta-analysis of individual patient data is challenging. Only strong collaborations between all stakeholders can make such a process efficient. An "ecosystem" that includes all stakeholders (questions of interest prioritised by the community, funders, trialists, journal editors, institutions, …) is required. International medical societies can play a central role in favouring the emergence of such communities.

Dataset Information

Distribution and epidemiological characteristics of published individual patient data meta-analyses.

Publications

Distribution and epidemiological characteristics of published individual patient data meta-analyses.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets