Overcoming obstacles in obtaining individual participant data for meta-analysis

Research Synthesis Methods

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 333-341

  Polanin, Joshua R ^a   Williams, Ryan T ^b  

^a Development Services Group Inc   (United States)

^b AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

data sharing; ethical practices; individual participant data; meta analysis

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; ETHICS; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PROBABILITY; PROCEDURES; PUBLICATION; RESEARCH ETHICS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; UNITED STATES;

DATA COLLECTION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (U.S.); PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PROBABILITY; PUBLICATIONS; RESEARCH DESIGN; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84971414835     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17592887     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1208     Document Type: Note

References (38)

1. Aloe AM, Thompson CG. 2013. The synthesis of partial effect sizes. Journal of Society for Social Work and Research 4(4): 390–405.
2. American Psychological Association. 2010. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from: https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/principles.pdf
3. Archaeology Data Service. 2015. About us. Retrieved from: http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/about
4. Campbell EG, Clarridge BR, Gokhale M, Birenbaum L, Hilgartner S, Holtzman NA, Blumenthal D. 2002. Data withholding in academic genetics: evidence from a national survey. JAMA 287(4): 473–480.
5. Center for Open Science. 2016. COS Mission. Retrieved from: https://cos.io/about_mission/
6. Climate Change Knowledge Portal. 2015. Why a climate change knowledge portal? Retrieved from: http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal/index.cfm?page=why_climate_change
7. Cooper H, Patall EA. 2009. The relative benefits of meta-analysis conducted with individual participant data versus aggregated data. Psychological Methods 14(2): 165.
8. Cooper H, VandenBos GR. 2013. Archives of scientific psychology. Archives of Scientific Psychology 1: 1–6.
9. Glass, G. V. 2000. Meta-analysis at 25. Retrieved December 2014, from http://glass.ed.asu.edu/gene/papers/meta25.html
10. Ioannidis JPA. 2005. Why most published research findings are false. Chance 18: 40–47. DOI:10.1080/09332480.2005.10722754.
11. Institute of Educational Sciences. 2013. Data sharing implementation guide. Retrieved from: http://ies.ed.gov/funding/datasharing_implementation.asp
12. Institute of Medicine. 2015. Sharing clinical trial data. Maximizing benefits, minimizing risk. Retrieved from: http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2015/SharingData/CompleteRecommendations.pdf
13. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [ICPSR]. 2015. About ICPSR. Retrieved from: https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/content/membership/about.html
14. Jaspers GJ, Degraeuwe PL. 2008. A failed attempt to conduct an individual patient data meta-analysis. Epidemiology 19: 640–648. DOI:10.1186/2046-4053-3-97.
15. Kovalchik, S. 2014. ipdmeta (Version 2.4) [Software]. Available from: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ipdmeta/ipdmeta.pdf
16. Lambert PC, Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR. 2002. A comparison of summary patient-level covariates in meta-regression with individual patient data meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 55(1): 86–94.
17. National Archive of Criminal Justice Data. 2010. About NACJD. Retrieved from: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/content/NACJD/mission.html
18. National Institutes of Health. March, 2003. NIH data sharing policy and implementation guidance. Retrieved from: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_guidance.htm#goals
19. National Science Foundation. 2013. Chapter VI- Other post award requirements and considerations. Dissemination and sharing of research results. Retrieved from: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/aag_6.jsp#VID4
20. Nature. 2015. Availability of data, materials, and methods. Retrieved from: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/availability.html
21. Pigott TD. 2009. Handling missing data. In Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC (eds.). The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-analysis(pp. 399–416). New York, NY: Sage Publication.
22. st edn.New York, NY: Springer.
23. Pigott TD, Williams RT, Polanin JR. 2012. Individual participant data meta-analysis with correlations. Research Synthesis Methods 3: 257–268.
24. PLOS one. 2015. PLOS editorial and publishing policies. Retrieved from: http://www.plosone.org/static/policies.action#sharing
25. Rees R, Oliver S. 2012. Stakeholder perspectives and participation in reviews. In Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J (eds.). An Introduction to Systematic Reviews(pp. 17–34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.
26. Riley RD, Lambert PC, Staessen JA, Wang J, Gueyffier F, Thijs L, Boutitie F. 2008. Meta-analysis of continuous outcomes combining individual patient data and aggregate data. Statistics in Medicine 27(11): 1870–1893.
27. Shamoo AE, Resnik DB. 2009. Responsible Conduct of Research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
28. Smith CT, Dwan K, Altman DG, Clarke M, Riley R, Williamson PR. 2014. Sharing individual participant data from clinical trials: an opinion survey regarding the establishment of a central repository. PloS One 9(5): e97886. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0097886.
29. Stewart LA, Parmar MKB. 1993. Meta-analysis of the literature or of individual patient data: is there a difference? The Lancet 341(8842): 418–422.
30. Sturges P, Bamkin M, Anders JH, Hubbard B, Hussain A, Heeley M. 2015. Research data sharing: Developing a stakeholder-driven model for journal policies. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66(12): 2445–2455.
31. Sydes MR, Johnson AL, Meredith SK, Rauchenberger M, South A, Parmar MK. 2015. Sharing data from clinical trials: the rationale for a controlled access approach. Trials 16: 104–110. DOI:10.1186/s13063-015-0604-6.
32. The Institute for Quantitative Social Science. 2015. Dataverse project: user guide. Retrieved from: http://guides.dataverse.org/en/4.2.1/user/
33. Tierney JF, Pignon JP, Gueffyier F, Clarke M, Askie L, Vale CL, C. I. M. A. M. Group. 2015. How individual participant data meta-analyses have influenced trial design, conduct, and analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 68: 1325–1335. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.024.
34. Walport W, Brest P. 2011. Sharing research data to improve public health. The Lancet 377: 537–539. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62234-9.
35. Wicherts JM, Bakker M. 2012. Publish (your data) or (let the data) perish! Why not publish your data too? Intelligence 40: 73–76. DOI:10.1016/j.intell.2012.01.004.
36. Wicherts JM, Borsboom D, Kats J, Molenaar D. 2006. The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. American Psychologist 61: 726–728. DOI:10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.726.
37. Williams RT. 2012. Using Robust Standard Errors to Combine Multiple Estimates with Meta-analysis. Chicago, IL: Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Loyola University Chicago.
38. Zarin DA, Tse T, Williams RJ, Califf RM, Ide NC. 2011. The ClinicalTrials.gov results database–update and key issues. New England Journal of Medicine 364: 852–860. DOI:10.1056/NEJMsa1012065.