Meta-analysis of Gaussian individual patient data: Two-stage or not two-stage?

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 37, Issue 9, 2018, Pages 1419-1438

  Morris, Tim P ^a   Fisher, David J ^a   Kenward, Michael G ^b   Carpenter, James R ^a,c  

^a MRC CLINICAL TRIALS UNIT   (United Kingdom)

^b London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine ^*  (United Kingdom)

^c LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

individual patient data; meta analysis; one stage; two stage

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ERROR; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICINE; META ANALYSIS; PATIENT CODING; PHYSICIAN; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SYNTHESIS; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NORMAL DISTRIBUTION;

EID: 85040737763     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.7589     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. 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.
2. Riley RD, Lambert PC, Abo-Zaid G. Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting. BMJ. 2010;340:c221.
3. Fisher DJ. Two-stage individual participant data meta-analysis and generalized forest plots. Stata J. 2015;15(2):369-396.
4. Tierney JF, Vale C, Riley R, et al. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: guidance on their use. PLoS Med. 2015;12(7):e1001855+.
5. Olkin I, Sampson A. Comparison of meta-analysis versus analysis of variance of individual patient data. Biometrics. 1998;54(1):317-322.
6. Mathew T, Nordstrom K. Comparison of one-step and two-step meta-analysis models using individual patient data. Biom J. 2010;52(2):271-287.
7. Lin DY, Zeng D. On the relative efficiency of using summary statistics versus individual-level data in meta-analysis. Biometrika. 2010;97(2):321-332.
8. Lin DY, Zeng D. Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies: no efficiency gain in using individual participant data. Genet Epidemiol. 2010;34(1):60-66.
9. Burke DL, Ensor J, Riley RD. Meta-analysis using individual participant data: one-stage and two-stage approaches, and why they may differ. Statist Med. 2017;36(5):855-875.
10. Simmonds M, Stewart G, Stewart L. Decade of individual participant data meta-analyses: a review of current practice. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;45(Pt A):76-83.
11. Debray TPA, Moons KGM, Valkenhoef G, et al. Get real in individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis: a review of the methodology. Res Synth Methods. 2015;6(4):293-309.
12. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc Series A (Statistics in Society). 2009;172(1):137-159.
13. Senn S. The many modes of meta. Drug Inf J. 2000;34:535-54.
14. Tudur Smith C, Williamson PR, Marson AG. Investigating heterogeneity in an individual patient data meta-analysis of time to event outcomes. Stat Med. 2005;24(9):1307-1319.
15. Senn SJ. Hans van Houwelingen and the art of summing up. Biom J. 2010;52(1):85-94.
16. Parzen M, Lipsitz SR, Dear KBG. Does clustering affect the usual test statistics of no treatment effect in a randomized clinical trial? Biom J. 1998;40(4):385-402.
17. Kahan BC, Morris TP. Assessing potential sources of clustering in individually randomised trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(1):58+.
18. Lunn D, Barrett J, Sweeting M, Thompson S. Fully Bayesian hierarchical modelling in two stages, with application to meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc Ser C (Appl Stat). 2013;62(4):551-572.
19. Kenward MG, Roger JH. Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics. 1997;53:983-997.
20. Rücker G, Schwarzer G, Carpenter JR. Arcsine test for publication bias in meta-analyses with binary outcomes.Stat Med. 2008;27(5):746-763.
21. Galandi D, Schwarzer G, Antes G. The demise of the randomised controlled trial: bibliometric study of the German-language health care literature, 1948 to 2004. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:30.
22. White IR. simsum: analyses of simulation studies including Monte Carlo error. Stata J. 2010;10(3):369-385.
23. Gueyffier F, Boutitie F, Boissel JP, et al. INDANA: a meta-analysis on individual patient data in hypertension. Protocol and preliminary results. Thérapie. 1995;50(4):353-362.
24. Gueyffier F, Boutitie F, Boissel JP, et al. Effect of antihypertensive drug treatment on cardiovascular outcomes in women and men. A meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized, controlled trials. The INDANA Investigators. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(10):761-767.
25. Kahan BC, Morris TP. Improper analysis of trials randomised using stratified blocks or minimisation. Stat Med. 2012;31(4):328-340.
26. Kahan BC, Jairath V, Doré CJ, Morris TP. The risks and rewards of covariate adjustment in randomized trials: an assessment of 12 outcomes from 8 studies. Trials. 2014;15(1):139+.
27. Fisher DJ, Copas AJ, Tierney JF, Parmar MKB. A critical review of methods for the assessment of patient-level interactions in individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized trials, and guidance for practitioners. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(9):949-967.
28. Fisher DJ, Carpenter JR, Morris TP, Freeman SC, Tierney JF. Meta-analytical methods to identify who benefits most from treatments: daft, deluded, or deft approach? BMJ. 2017;356:j573+.
29. Hua H, Burke DL, Crowther MJ, Ensor J, Tudur Smith C, Riley RD. One-stage individual participant data meta-analysis models: estimation of treatment-covariate interactions must avoid ecological bias by separating out within-trial and across-trial information. Statist Med. 2017;36(5):772-789.
30. Kendall MG, Stuart A. The Advanced Theory of Statistics, Vol. 1: Distribution Theorych. 10, :232+. Bucks, UK: Charles Griffin & Company Limited third ed; 1969.
31. Kenward MG, Roger JH. An improved approximation to the precision of fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2009;53(7):2583-2595.