Individual participant data (IPD) metaanalyses of randomised controlled trials: Uidance on their use

PLoS Medicine

Volumn 12, Issue 7, 2015, Pages

  Tierney, Jayne F ^a   Vale, Claire ^a   Riley, Richard ^b   Smith, Catrin Tudur ^c   Stewart, Lesley ^d   Clarke, Mike ^e   Rovers, Maroeska ^f  

^a MRC CLINICAL TRIALS UNIT   (United Kingdom)

^b KEELE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^e QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

^f RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTHROPOMETRY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DATA PROCESSING; HUMAN; INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANT DATA; INFORMATION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; LITERATURE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; STANDARDS;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84938702916     PISSN: 15491277     EISSN: 15491676     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001855     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Higgins JPT, Green SJ, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2008.
2. Sterne JAC, Egger M, Moher D, on behalf of the Cochrane Bias Methods Group. Addressing reporting biases. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester: Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2008. p. 297–333.
3. Stewart LA, Clarke MJ, on behalf of the Cochrane Working Party Group on Meta-analysis using Individual Patient Data. Practical methodology of meta-analyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data. Stat Med. 1995; 14:2057–79. PMID: 8552887
4. Stewart LA, Tierney JF. To IPD or Not to IPD? Advantages and disadvantages of systematic reviews using individual patient data. Eval Health Prof. 2002; 25(1):76–97. PMID: 11868447
5. Stewart LA, Tierney JF, Clarke M, on behalf of the Cochrane Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis Methods Group. Reviews of individual patient data. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester: Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2008. p. 547–58.
6. Duchateau L, Pignon J-P, Bijnens L, Bertin S, Bourhis J, Sylvester R. Individual patient-versus literature- based meta-analysis of survival data: Time to event and event rate at a particular time can make a difference, an example based on head and neck cancer. Control Clin Trials. 2001; 22(5):538–47. PMID: 11578787
7. Stewart LA, Parmar MKB. Meta-analysis of the literature or of individual patient data: is there a difference? Lancet. 1993; 341:418–22. PMID: 8094183
8. Jeng GT, Scott JR, Burmeister LF. A comparison of meta-analytic results using literature versus individual patient data: paternal cell immunization for recurrent miscarriage. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1995; 274:840–36.
9. Collaboration EHT. Value of updating a systematic review in surgery using individual patient data. Br J Surg. 2004; 91:495–9. PMID: 15048755
10. Chalmers I. The Cochrane Collaboration: preparing, maintaining and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences. 1993; 703:156–65.
11. Riley RD, Lambert PC, Abo-Zaid G. Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting. BMJ. 2010; 340:c221. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c221 PMID: 20139215
12. Ahmed I, Sutton AJ, Riley RD. Assessment of publication bias, selection bias, and unavailable data in meta-analyses using individual participant data: a database survey. BMJ. 2012; 344:d7762. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d7762 PMID: 22214758
13. Vale CL, Rydzewska LHM, Rovers MM, Emberson JR, Gueyffier F, Stewart LA. Uptake of systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on individual participant data in clinical practice guidelines: descriptive study. BMJ. 2015; 350;h1088. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h1088 PMID: 25747860
14. Tierney JF, Pignon J-P, Gueffyier F, Clarke M, Askie L, Vale CL, et al. How individual participant data meta-analyses can influence trial design and conduct J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; In press.
15. Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L. An international registry of systematicreview protocols. Lancet. 2011; 377(9760):108–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60903-8 PMID: 20630580
16. Advanced Ovarian Cancer Trialists Group. Chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer: an overview of randomised clinical trials. BMJ. 1991; 303:884–93. PMID: 1834291
17. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 1998; 351:1451–67. PMID: 9605801
18. Chemoradiotherapy for Cervical Cancer Meta-analysis Collaboration Reducing uncertainties about the effects of chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from 18 randomized trials. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26(35):5802–12. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.16.4368 PMID: 19001332
19. Dickersin K. Publication bias: recognising the problem, understanding its origins and scope, and preventing harm. In: Rothstein H, Sutton A, Borenstein M, editors. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2005. p. 261–86.
20. Burdett S, Stewart LA, Tierney JF. Publication bias and meta-analysis (A practical example). Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003; 19(1):129–34. PMID: 12701945
21. Sakamoto J, Hamada C, Yoshida S, Kodaira S, Yasutomi M, Kato T, et al. An individual patient data meta-analysis of adjuvant therapy with uracil-tegafur (UFT) in patients with curatively resected rectal cancer. British Journal of Cancer. 2007; 96(8):1170–7. PMID: 17375049
22. DeLuca G, Gibson CM, Bellandi F, Murphy S, Maioli M, Noc M, et al. Early glycoprotein IIb-IIIa inhibitors in primary angioplasty (EGYPT) cooperation: An individual patient data meta-analysis. Heart. 2008; 94 (12):1548–58. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2008.141648 PMID: 18474534
23. Riley RD, Simmonds MC, Look MP. Evidence synthesis combining individual patient data and aggregate data: a systematic review identified current practice and possible methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60(5):431–9. PMID: 17419953
24. Greb A, Bohlius J, Schiefer D, Schwarzer G, Schulz H, Engert A. High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation in the first line treatment of aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008(1):CD004024. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004024.pub2 PMID: 18254036
25. Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011; 343:d4002. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d4002 PMID: 21784880
26. Ioannidis JP, Trikalinos TA. The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey. CMAJ. 2007; 176(8):1091–6. PMID: 17420491
27. Stewart LA, Clarke M, Rovers M, Riley RD, Simmonds M, Stewart G, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data: The PRISMA-IPD Statement. JAMA. 2015; 313(16):1657–65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.3656 PMID: 25919529
28. Higgins JPT, Altman DG., on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group and the Cochrane Bias Methods Group. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2008.
29. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011; 343:d5928. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928 PMID: 22008217
30. Mhaskar R, Djulbegovic B, Magazin A, Soares HP, Kumar A. Published methodological quality of randomized controlled trials does not reflect the actual quality assessed in protocols. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012; 65(6):602–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.10.016 PMID: 22424985
31. Vale CL, Tierney JF, Burdett S. Can trial quality be reliably assessed from published reports of cancer trials: evaluation of risk of bias assessments in systematic reviews. BMJ. 2013; 346:f1798. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f1798 PMID: 23610376
32. Stewart L, Tierney J, Burdett S. Do systematic reviews based on individual patient data offer a means of circumventing biases associated with trial publications? In: Rothstein H, Sutton A, Borenstein M, editors. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2005. p. 261–86.
33. Altman DG. Randomisation. BMJ. 1991; 302:1481–2. PMID: 1855013
34. Lachin JM. Statistical considerations in the intent-to-treat principle. Control Clin Trials. 2000; 21:167–89. PMID: 10822117
35. Schulz K. F.; Grimes DA. Sample size slippages in randomised trials: exclusions and the lost and wayward. Lancet. 2002; 359:781–5. PMID: 11888606
36. Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews i n health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinicaltrials. BMJ. 2001; 323(7303):42–6. PMID: 11440947
37. Tierney JF, Stewart LA. Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2005; 34:79–87. PMID: 15561753
38. Sarcoma Meta-analysis Collaboration. Adjuvant chemotherapy for localised resectable soft tissue sarcoma in adults: meta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet. 1997; 350:1647–54. PMID: 9400508
39. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, Gamble C, Dodd S, Smyth R, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2010; 340:c365. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c365 PMID: 20156912
40. McCormack K, Grant A, Scott N. Value of updating a systematic review in surgery using individual patient data. Br J Surg. 2004; 91(4):495–9. PMID: 15048755
41. Abo-Zaid G, Guo B, Deeks JJ, Debray TP, Steyerberg EW, Moons KG, et al. Individual participant data meta-analyses should not ignore clustering. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66(8):865–73 e4. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.12.017 PMID: 23651765
42. Simmonds MC, Higgins JPT, Stewart LA, Tierney JF, Clarke MJ, Thompson SG. Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials—a review of methods used in practice. Clinical Trials. 2005; 2(3):209–17. PMID: 16279144
43. Bowden J, Tierney JF, Simmonds M, Copas AJ. Individual patient data meta-analysis of time-to-event outcomes: one-stage versus two-stage approaches for estimating the hazard ratio under a random effects model. Research synthesis methods. 2011; 2(3):150–62. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.45 PMID: 26061783
44. Yusuf S, Peto R J. A. L, Collins R, Sleight P. Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1985; 27:335–71. PMID: 2858114
45. Mantel N, HaenszelW. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959; 22(4):719–48. PMID: 13655060
46. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986; 7:177–88. PMID: 3802833
47. Turner RM, Omar RZ, Yang M, Goldstein H, Thompson SG. A multilevel model fram ework for metaanalysisof clinical trials with binary outcomes. Stat Med. 2000; 19:3417–32. PMID: 11122505
48. Higgins JPT, Whitehead A, Turner RM, Omar RZ, Thompson SG. Meta-anal ysis of continuous outcomedata from individual patients. Stat Med. 2001; 20:2219–41. PMID: 11468761
49. Whitehead A, Omar RZ, Higgins JPT, Savaluny E, Turner RM, Thompson SG. Meta-analysis of ordinal outcomes using individual patient data. Stat Med. 2001; 20:2243–60. PMID: 11468762
50. Tudur Smith C, Williamson PR, Marson AG. Investigating heterogeneity in an individua l patient data meta-analysis of time to event outcomes. Stat Med. 2005; 24:1307–19. PMID: 15685717
51. Olkin I, Sampson A. Comparison of meta-analysi s versus analysis of variance of individual patient data. Biometrics. 1998; 54:317–22. PMID: 9544524
52. Mathew T, Nordstrom K. On the equivalence of meta-analys is using literature and using individualpatient data. Biometrics. 1999; 55(4):1221–3. PMID: 11315071
53. Mathew T, Nordstrom K. Comparison of one-step and two-step meta-analysis models using individual patient data. Biometrical journal Biometrische Zeitschrift. 2010; 52(2):271–87. doi: 10.1002/bimj.200900143 PMID: 20349448
54. Tudur Smith C, Williamson PR. A comparison of methods for fixed effects meta-analysis of individualpatient data with time to event outcomes. Clin Trials. 2007; 4(6):621–30. PMID: 18042571
55. Stewart GB, Altman DG, Askie LM, Duley L, Simmonds MC, Stewart LA. Statistical analysis of individual participant data meta-analyses: a comparison of methods and recommendations for practice. PLoS ONE. 2012; 7(10):e46042. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046042 PMID: 23056232
56. Koopman L, van der Heijden GJ, Hoes AW, Grobbee DE, Rovers MM. Empirical comparison of subgroup effects in conventional and individual patient data meta-analyses. Int J Technol A ssess HealthCare. 2008; 24(3):358–61. doi: 10.1017/S0266462308080471 PMID: 18601805
57. Stijnen T, Hamza TH, Ozdemir P. Random effects meta-analysis of event outcome in the framework of the generalized linear mixed model with applications in sparse data. Stat Med. 2010; 29(29):3046–67. doi: 10.1002/sim.4040 PMID: 20827667
58. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG, on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions2008. p. 243–96.
59. Berlin JA, Santanna J, Schmid CH, Szczech LA, Feldman HI, Anti-Lymphocyte Antibody Induction Therapy Study G. Individual patient- versus group-level data meta-regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly head. Stat Med. 2002; 21(3):371–87. PMID: 11813224
60. Fisher DJ, Copas AJ, Tierney JF, Parmar MKB. A critical review of methods for the assessment of patient-level interactions in individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomised trials, and guidance for practitioners. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64:949–67. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.11.016 PMID: 21411280
61. PORT Meta-analysis Trialists Group. Postoperative radiotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from nine randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 1998; 352:257–63. PMID: 9690404
62. Riley RD, Lambert PC, Staessen JA, Wang J, Gueyffier F, Thijs L, et al. Meta-analysis of continuous outcomes combining individual patient data and aggregate data. Stat Med. 2008; 27(11):1870–93. PMID: 18069721
63. Groenwold RH, Donders AR, van der Heijden GJ, Hoes AW, Rovers MM. Confounding of subgroup analyses in randomized data. Arch Intern Med. 2009; 169(16):1532–4. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.250 PMID: 19752412
64. Rydzewska L, Tierney J, Vale C. Obtaining funding for IPD meta-analyses: Top tips for a successfulapplication. 19th Cochrane Colloquium; Madrid, Spain: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011. p. 65.
65. Abo-Zaid G, Sauerbrei W, Riley RD. Individual participant data meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies: state of the art? BMC medical research methodology. 2012; 12:56. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-56 PMID: 22530717
66. Riley RD, Dodd SR, Craig JV, Thompson JR, Williamson PR. Meta-analysis of diagnostic test studies using individual patient data and aggregate data. Stat Med. 2008; 27(29):6111–36. doi: 10.1002/sim.3441 PMID: 18816508
67. Debray TP, Moons KG, Ahmed I, Koffijberg H, Riley RD. A framework for developing, implementing, and evaluating clinical prediction models in an individual participant data meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2013; 32(18):3158–80. doi: 10.1002/sim.5732 PMID: 23307585
68. Riley R, Price M, Jackson D, Wardle M, Gueyffier F, Wang J, et al. Multivariate meta-analysis using individual participant data. Research Synthesis Methods. 2015;In press. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1129
69. PROSPERO: Internatio nal prospective register of systematic reviews http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/prospero.asp.
70. Rydzewska L, Tierney J, Clarke M, Stewart L, Rovers M. Publication of IPD meta-analyses in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: Potential barriers and opportunities. 19th Cochrahe Colloquium; Madrid, Spain: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011. p. 150.