Cargando…

Impact of missing individual patient data on 18 meta-analyses of randomised trials in oncology: Gustave Roussy experience

OBJECTIVE: To compare the characteristics, quality and treatment effects of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) by individual patient data (IPD) availability, in trials eligible for 18 IPD meta-analyses (MA). DESIGN: Trial characteristics, risk of bias (RoB) and hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fayard, Florence, Petit, Claire, Lacas, Benjamin, Pignon, Jean Pierre
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6091903/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30104312
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020499
_version_ 1783347442671943680
author Fayard, Florence
Petit, Claire
Lacas, Benjamin
Pignon, Jean Pierre
author_facet Fayard, Florence
Petit, Claire
Lacas, Benjamin
Pignon, Jean Pierre
author_sort Fayard, Florence
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare the characteristics, quality and treatment effects of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) by individual patient data (IPD) availability, in trials eligible for 18 IPD meta-analyses (MA). DESIGN: Trial characteristics, risk of bias (RoB) and hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival were extracted from IPD-MA publications and/or RCTs publications. Data for the RoB assessment were extracted for a subset of 73 RCTs. Two investigators blinded to whether IPD was available or not evaluated the RoB for these trials. Treatment effects were compared using ratios of global HRs (RHRs) of IPD-unavailable trials and IPD-available trials. RHR were pooled using a fixed-effect model. DATA SOURCES: We examined the IPD availability for each trial eligible for each IPD-MA; when the IPD was not available for a trial, we used information from published sources. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We selected all published IPD-MAs conducted at Gustave Roussy and the RCTs eligible for each. RESULTS: 349 RCTs (73 018 patients) from 18 MAs were eligible: 60 RCTs (5890 patients) had unavailable IPD and 289 RCTs (67 128 patients) had available IPD. The main reason for IPD unavailability was data loss by investigators. IPD-unavailable trials were smaller (p<0.001), more often monocentric (p<0.001) and non-international (p=0.0004) than IPD-available trials. Geographical areas differed (p=0.054) between IPD-unavailable IPD-available trials. RoB was higher in IPD-unavailable RCTs for random sequence generation (p=0.007) and allocation concealment (p=0.006). The HR and 95% confidence interval (CI) for overall survival were extractable from publications in 23/60 IPD-unavailable trials included in 10 different MAs. Treatment effects were significantly greater for IPD-unavailable trials compared with IPD-available trials (RHR=0.86 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.98)). CONCLUSIONS: IPD-unavailable RCTs were significantly different from IPD-available RCTs in terms of trial characteristics and were at greater RoB. IPD-unavailable RCTs had a significantly greater treatment effect.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6091903
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60919032018-08-17 Impact of missing individual patient data on 18 meta-analyses of randomised trials in oncology: Gustave Roussy experience Fayard, Florence Petit, Claire Lacas, Benjamin Pignon, Jean Pierre BMJ Open Public Health OBJECTIVE: To compare the characteristics, quality and treatment effects of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) by individual patient data (IPD) availability, in trials eligible for 18 IPD meta-analyses (MA). DESIGN: Trial characteristics, risk of bias (RoB) and hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival were extracted from IPD-MA publications and/or RCTs publications. Data for the RoB assessment were extracted for a subset of 73 RCTs. Two investigators blinded to whether IPD was available or not evaluated the RoB for these trials. Treatment effects were compared using ratios of global HRs (RHRs) of IPD-unavailable trials and IPD-available trials. RHR were pooled using a fixed-effect model. DATA SOURCES: We examined the IPD availability for each trial eligible for each IPD-MA; when the IPD was not available for a trial, we used information from published sources. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We selected all published IPD-MAs conducted at Gustave Roussy and the RCTs eligible for each. RESULTS: 349 RCTs (73 018 patients) from 18 MAs were eligible: 60 RCTs (5890 patients) had unavailable IPD and 289 RCTs (67 128 patients) had available IPD. The main reason for IPD unavailability was data loss by investigators. IPD-unavailable trials were smaller (p<0.001), more often monocentric (p<0.001) and non-international (p=0.0004) than IPD-available trials. Geographical areas differed (p=0.054) between IPD-unavailable IPD-available trials. RoB was higher in IPD-unavailable RCTs for random sequence generation (p=0.007) and allocation concealment (p=0.006). The HR and 95% confidence interval (CI) for overall survival were extractable from publications in 23/60 IPD-unavailable trials included in 10 different MAs. Treatment effects were significantly greater for IPD-unavailable trials compared with IPD-available trials (RHR=0.86 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.98)). CONCLUSIONS: IPD-unavailable RCTs were significantly different from IPD-available RCTs in terms of trial characteristics and were at greater RoB. IPD-unavailable RCTs had a significantly greater treatment effect. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-08-13 /pmc/articles/PMC6091903/ /pubmed/30104312 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020499 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Public Health
Fayard, Florence
Petit, Claire
Lacas, Benjamin
Pignon, Jean Pierre
Impact of missing individual patient data on 18 meta-analyses of randomised trials in oncology: Gustave Roussy experience
title Impact of missing individual patient data on 18 meta-analyses of randomised trials in oncology: Gustave Roussy experience
title_full Impact of missing individual patient data on 18 meta-analyses of randomised trials in oncology: Gustave Roussy experience
title_fullStr Impact of missing individual patient data on 18 meta-analyses of randomised trials in oncology: Gustave Roussy experience
title_full_unstemmed Impact of missing individual patient data on 18 meta-analyses of randomised trials in oncology: Gustave Roussy experience
title_short Impact of missing individual patient data on 18 meta-analyses of randomised trials in oncology: Gustave Roussy experience
title_sort impact of missing individual patient data on 18 meta-analyses of randomised trials in oncology: gustave roussy experience
topic Public Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6091903/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30104312
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020499
work_keys_str_mv AT fayardflorence impactofmissingindividualpatientdataon18metaanalysesofrandomisedtrialsinoncologygustaveroussyexperience
AT petitclaire impactofmissingindividualpatientdataon18metaanalysesofrandomisedtrialsinoncologygustaveroussyexperience
AT lacasbenjamin impactofmissingindividualpatientdataon18metaanalysesofrandomisedtrialsinoncologygustaveroussyexperience
AT pignonjeanpierre impactofmissingindividualpatientdataon18metaanalysesofrandomisedtrialsinoncologygustaveroussyexperience