Cargando…

Systematic review of methods for individual patient data meta- analysis with binary outcomes

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses (MA) based on individual patient data (IPD) are regarded as the gold standard for meta-analyses and are becoming increasingly common, having several advantages over meta-analyses of summary statistics. These analyses are being undertaken in an increasing diversity of settin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thomas, Doneal, Radji, Sanyath, Benedetti, Andrea
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4074845/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24943877
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-79
_version_ 1782323258402537472
author Thomas, Doneal
Radji, Sanyath
Benedetti, Andrea
author_facet Thomas, Doneal
Radji, Sanyath
Benedetti, Andrea
author_sort Thomas, Doneal
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses (MA) based on individual patient data (IPD) are regarded as the gold standard for meta-analyses and are becoming increasingly common, having several advantages over meta-analyses of summary statistics. These analyses are being undertaken in an increasing diversity of settings, often having a binary outcome. In a previous systematic review of articles published between 1999–2001, the statistical approach was seldom reported in sufficient detail, and the outcome was binary in 32% of the studies considered. Here, we explore statistical methods used for IPD-MA of binary outcomes only, a decade later. METHODS: We selected 56 articles, published in 2011 that presented results from an individual patient data meta-analysis. Of these, 26 considered a binary outcome. Here, we review 26 IPD-MA published during 2011 to consider: the goal of the study and reason for conducting an IPD-MA, whether they obtained all the data they sought, the approach used in their analysis, for instance, a two-stage or a one stage model, and the assumption of fixed or random effects. We also investigated how heterogeneity across studies was described and how studies investigated the effects of covariates. RESULTS: 19 of the 26 IPD-MA used a one-stage approach. 9 IPD-MA used a one-stage random treatment-effect logistic regression model, allowing the treatment effect to vary across studies. Twelve IPD-MA presented some form of statistic to measure heterogeneity across studies, though these were usually calculated using two-stage approach. Subgroup analyses were undertaken in all IPD-MA that aimed to estimate a treatment effect or safety of a treatment,. Sixteen meta-analyses obtained 90% or more of the patients sought. CONCLUSION: Evidence from this systematic review shows that the use of binary outcomes in assessing the effects of health care problems has increased, with random effects logistic regression the most common method of analysis. Methods are still often not reported in enough detail. Results also show that heterogeneity of treatment effects is discussed in most applications.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4074845
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40748452014-07-01 Systematic review of methods for individual patient data meta- analysis with binary outcomes Thomas, Doneal Radji, Sanyath Benedetti, Andrea BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses (MA) based on individual patient data (IPD) are regarded as the gold standard for meta-analyses and are becoming increasingly common, having several advantages over meta-analyses of summary statistics. These analyses are being undertaken in an increasing diversity of settings, often having a binary outcome. In a previous systematic review of articles published between 1999–2001, the statistical approach was seldom reported in sufficient detail, and the outcome was binary in 32% of the studies considered. Here, we explore statistical methods used for IPD-MA of binary outcomes only, a decade later. METHODS: We selected 56 articles, published in 2011 that presented results from an individual patient data meta-analysis. Of these, 26 considered a binary outcome. Here, we review 26 IPD-MA published during 2011 to consider: the goal of the study and reason for conducting an IPD-MA, whether they obtained all the data they sought, the approach used in their analysis, for instance, a two-stage or a one stage model, and the assumption of fixed or random effects. We also investigated how heterogeneity across studies was described and how studies investigated the effects of covariates. RESULTS: 19 of the 26 IPD-MA used a one-stage approach. 9 IPD-MA used a one-stage random treatment-effect logistic regression model, allowing the treatment effect to vary across studies. Twelve IPD-MA presented some form of statistic to measure heterogeneity across studies, though these were usually calculated using two-stage approach. Subgroup analyses were undertaken in all IPD-MA that aimed to estimate a treatment effect or safety of a treatment,. Sixteen meta-analyses obtained 90% or more of the patients sought. CONCLUSION: Evidence from this systematic review shows that the use of binary outcomes in assessing the effects of health care problems has increased, with random effects logistic regression the most common method of analysis. Methods are still often not reported in enough detail. Results also show that heterogeneity of treatment effects is discussed in most applications. BioMed Central 2014-06-19 /pmc/articles/PMC4074845/ /pubmed/24943877 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-79 Text en Copyright © 2014 Thomas et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Thomas, Doneal
Radji, Sanyath
Benedetti, Andrea
Systematic review of methods for individual patient data meta- analysis with binary outcomes
title Systematic review of methods for individual patient data meta- analysis with binary outcomes
title_full Systematic review of methods for individual patient data meta- analysis with binary outcomes
title_fullStr Systematic review of methods for individual patient data meta- analysis with binary outcomes
title_full_unstemmed Systematic review of methods for individual patient data meta- analysis with binary outcomes
title_short Systematic review of methods for individual patient data meta- analysis with binary outcomes
title_sort systematic review of methods for individual patient data meta- analysis with binary outcomes
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4074845/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24943877
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-79
work_keys_str_mv AT thomasdoneal systematicreviewofmethodsforindividualpatientdatametaanalysiswithbinaryoutcomes
AT radjisanyath systematicreviewofmethodsforindividualpatientdatametaanalysiswithbinaryoutcomes
AT benedettiandrea systematicreviewofmethodsforindividualpatientdatametaanalysiswithbinaryoutcomes