Dataset Information

Obtaining and managing data sets for individual participant data meta-analysis: scoping review and practical guide.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Shifts in data sharing policy have increased researchers' access to individual participant data (IPD) from clinical studies. Simultaneously the number of IPD meta-analyses (IPDMAs) is increasing. However, rates of data retrieval have not improved. Our goal was to describe the challenges of retrieving IPD for an IPDMA and provide practical guidance on obtaining and managing datasets based on a review of the literature and practical examples and observations. METHODS:We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, until January 2019, to identify publications focused on strategies to obtain IPD. In addition, we searched pharmaceutical websites and contacted industry organizations for supplemental information pertaining to recent advances in industry policy and practice. Finally, we documented setbacks and solutions encountered while completing a comprehensive IPDMA and drew on previous experiences related to seeking and using IPD. RESULTS:Our scoping review identified 16 articles directly relevant for the conduct of IPDMAs. We present short descriptions of these articles alongside overviews of IPD sharing policies and procedures of pharmaceutical companies which display certification of Principles for Responsible Clinical Trial Data Sharing via Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America or European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations websites. Advances in data sharing policy and practice affected the way in which data is requested, obtained, stored and analyzed. For our IPDMA it took 6.5?years to collect and analyze relevant IPD and navigate additional administrative barriers. Delays in obtaining data were largely due to challenges in communication with study sponsors, frequent changes in data sharing policies of study sponsors, and the requirement for a diverse skillset related to research, administrative, statistical and legal issues. CONCLUSIONS:Knowledge of current data sharing practices and platforms as well as anticipation of necessary tasks and potential obstacles may reduce time and resources required for obtaining and managing data for an IPDMA. Sufficient project funding and timeline flexibility are pre-requisites for successful collection and analysis of IPD. IPDMA researchers must acknowledge the additional and unexpected responsibility they are placing on corresponding study authors or data sharing administrators and should offer assistance in readying data for sharing.

SUBMITTER: Ventresca M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7218569 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Obtaining and managing data sets for individual participant data meta-analysis: scoping review and practical guide.

Ventresca Matthew M Schünemann Holger J HJ Macbeth Fergus F Clarke Mike M Thabane Lehana L Griffiths Gareth G Noble Simon S Garcia David D Marcucci Maura M Iorio Alfonso A Zhou Qi Q Crowther Mark M Akl Elie A EA Lyman Gary H GH Gloy Viktoria V DiNisio Marcello M Briel Matthias M

BMC medical research methodology 20200512 1

<h4>Background</h4>Shifts in data sharing policy have increased researchers' access to individual participant data (IPD) from clinical studies. Simultaneously the number of IPD meta-analyses (IPDMAs) is increasing. However, rates of data retrieval have not improved. Our goal was to describe the challenges of retrieving IPD for an IPDMA and provide practical guidance on obtaining and managing datasets based on a review of the literature and practical examples and observations.<h4>Methods</h4>We s ...[more]

PMID: 32398016

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFour studies previously indicated that the effect of malaria infection during pregnancy on the risk of low birthweight (LBW; <2,500 g) may depend upon maternal nutritional status. We investigated this dependence further using a large, diverse study population.Methods and findingsWe evaluated the interaction between maternal malaria infection and maternal anthropometric status on the risk of LBW using pooled data from 14,633 pregnancies from 13 studies (6 cohort studies and 7 randomized controlled trials) conducted in Africa and the Western Pacific from 1996-2015. Studies were identified by the Maternal Malaria and Malnutrition (M3) initiative using a convenience sampling approach and were eligible for pooling given adequate ethical approval and availability of essential variables. Study-specific adjusted effect estimates were calculated using inverse probability of treatment-weighted linear and log-binomial regression models and pooled using a random-effects model. The adjusted risk of delivering a baby with LBW was 8.8% among women with malaria infection at antenatal enrollment compared to 7.7% among uninfected women (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 1.14 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.91, 1.42]; N = 13,613), 10.5% among women with malaria infection at delivery compared to 7.9% among uninfected women (aRR 1.32 [95% CI: 1.08, 1.62]; N = 11,826), and 15.3% among women with low mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC <23 cm) at enrollment compared to 9.5% among women with MUAC ? 23 cm (aRR 1.60 [95% CI: 1.36, 1.87]; N = 9,008). The risk of delivering a baby with LBW was 17.8% among women with both malaria infection and low MUAC at enrollment compared to 8.4% among uninfected women with MUAC ? 23 cm (joint aRR 2.13 [95% CI: 1.21, 3.73]; N = 8,152). There was no evidence of synergism (i.e., excess risk due to interaction) between malaria infection and MUAC on the multiplicative (p = 0.5) or additive scale (p = 0.9). Results were similar using body mass index (BMI) as an anthropometric indicator of nutritional status. Meta-regression results indicated that there may be multiplicative interaction between malaria infection at enrollment and low MUAC within studies conducted in Africa; however, this finding was not consistent on the additive scale, when accounting for multiple comparisons, or when using other definitions of malaria and malnutrition. The major limitations of the study included availability of only 2 cross-sectional measurements of malaria and the limited availability of ultrasound-based pregnancy dating to assess impacts on preterm birth and fetal growth in all studies.ConclusionsPregnant women with malnutrition and malaria infection are at increased risk of LBW compared to women with only 1 risk factor or none, but malaria and malnutrition do not act synergistically.

Project description:ObjectivesTo explore the impact of data-sharing initiatives on the intent to share data, on actual data sharing, on the use of shared data and on research output and impact of shared data.Eligibility criteriaAll studies investigating data-sharing practices for individual participant data (IPD) from clinical trials.Sources of evidenceWe searched the Medline database, the Cochrane Library, the Science Citation Index Expanded and the Social Sciences Citation Index via Web of Science, and preprints and proceedings of the International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication. In addition, we inspected major clinical trial data-sharing platforms, contacted major journals/publishers, editorial groups and some funders.Charting methodsTwo reviewers independently extracted information on methods and results from resources identified using a standardised questionnaire. A map of the extracted data was constructed and accompanied by a narrative summary for each outcome domain.Results93 studies identified in the literature search (published between 2001 and 2020, median: 2018) and 5 from additional information sources were included in the scoping review. Most studies were descriptive and focused on early phases of the data-sharing process. While the willingness to share IPD from clinical trials is extremely high, actual data-sharing rates are suboptimal. A survey of journal data suggests poor to moderate enforcement of the policies by publishers. Metrics provided by platforms suggest that a large majority of data remains unrequested. When requested, the purpose of the reuse is more often secondary analyses and meta-analyses, rarely re-analyses. Finally, studies focused on the real impact of data-sharing were rare and used surrogates such as citation metrics.ConclusionsThere is currently a gap in the evidence base for the impact of IPD sharing, which entails uncertainties in the implementation of current data-sharing policies. High level evidence is needed to assess whether the value of medical research increases with data-sharing practices.

Project description:BackgroundSome studies have suggested a link between antihypertensive medication and cancer, but the evidence is so far inconclusive. Thus, we aimed to investigate this association in a large individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.MethodsWe searched PubMed, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from Jan 1, 1966, to Sept 1, 2019, to identify potentially eligible randomised controlled trials. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials comparing one blood pressure lowering drug class with a placebo, inactive control, or other blood pressure lowering drug. We also required that trials had at least 1000 participant years of follow-up in each treatment group. Trials without cancer event information were excluded. We requested individual participant data from the authors of eligible trials. We pooled individual participant-level data from eligible trials and assessed the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), β blockers, calcium channel blockers, and thiazide diuretics on cancer risk in one-stage individual participant data and network meta-analyses. Cause-specific fixed-effects Cox regression models, stratified by trial, were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs). The primary outcome was any cancer event, defined as the first occurrence of any cancer diagnosed after randomisation. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018099283).Findings33 trials met the inclusion criteria, and included 260 447 participants with 15 012 cancer events. Median follow-up of included participants was 4·2 years (IQR 3·0-5·0). In the individual participant data meta-analysis comparing each drug class with all other comparators, no associations were identified between any antihypertensive drug class and risk of any cancer (HR 0·99 [95% CI 0·95-1·04] for ACEIs; 0·96 [0·92-1·01] for ARBs; 0·98 [0·89-1·07] for β blockers; 1·01 [0·95-1·07] for thiazides), with the exception of calcium channel blockers (1·06 [1·01-1·11]). In the network meta-analysis comparing drug classes against placebo, we found no excess cancer risk with any drug class (HR 1·00 [95% CI 0·93-1·09] for ACEIs; 0·99 [0·92-1·06] for ARBs; 0·99 [0·89-1·11] for β blockers; 1·04 [0·96-1·13] for calcium channel blockers; 1·00 [0·90-1·10] for thiazides).InterpretationWe found no consistent evidence that antihypertensive medication use had any effect on cancer risk. Although such findings are reassuring, evidence for some comparisons was insufficient to entirely rule out excess risk, in particular for calcium channel blockers.FundingBritish Heart Foundation, National Institute for Health Research, Oxford Martin School.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Pre-eclampsia is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. Early identification of women at risk during pregnancy is required to plan management. Although there are many published prediction models for pre-eclampsia, few have been validated in external data. Our objective was to externally validate published prediction models for pre-eclampsia using individual participant data (IPD) from UK studies, to evaluate whether any of the models can accurately predict the condition when used within the UK healthcare setting. METHODS:IPD from 11 UK cohort studies (217,415 pregnant women) within the International Prediction of Pregnancy Complications (IPPIC) pre-eclampsia network contributed to external validation of published prediction models, identified by systematic review. Cohorts that measured all predictor variables in at least one of the identified models and reported pre-eclampsia as an outcome were included for validation. We reported the model predictive performance as discrimination (C-statistic), calibration (calibration plots, calibration slope, calibration-in-the-large), and net benefit. Performance measures were estimated separately in each available study and then, where possible, combined across studies in a random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS:Of 131 published models, 67 provided the full model equation and 24 could be validated in 11 UK cohorts. Most of the models showed modest discrimination with summary C-statistics between 0.6 and 0.7. The calibration of the predicted compared to observed risk was generally poor for most models with observed calibration slopes less than 1, indicating that predictions were generally too extreme, although confidence intervals were wide. There was large between-study heterogeneity in each model's calibration-in-the-large, suggesting poor calibration of the predicted overall risk across populations. In a subset of models, the net benefit of using the models to inform clinical decisions appeared small and limited to probability thresholds between 5 and 7%. CONCLUSIONS:The evaluated models had modest predictive performance, with key limitations such as poor calibration (likely due to overfitting in the original development datasets), substantial heterogeneity, and small net benefit across settings. The evidence to support the use of these prediction models for pre-eclampsia in clinical decision-making is limited. Any models that we could not validate should be examined in terms of their predictive performance, net benefit, and heterogeneity across multiple UK settings before consideration for use in practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO ID: CRD42015029349 .

Dataset Information

Obtaining and managing data sets for individual participant data meta-analysis: scoping review and practical guide.

Publications

Obtaining and managing data sets for individual participant data meta-analysis: scoping review and practical guide.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets