Cargando…
The methodological quality of individual participant data meta-analysis on intervention effects: systematic review
OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodological quality of individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis and to identify areas for improvement. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Systematic revi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8054226/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33875446 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n736 |
_version_ | 1783680260316856320 |
---|---|
author | Wang, Huan Chen, Yancong Lin, Yali Abesig, Julius Wu, Irene XY Tam, Wilson |
author_facet | Wang, Huan Chen, Yancong Lin, Yali Abesig, Julius Wu, Irene XY Tam, Wilson |
author_sort | Wang, Huan |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodological quality of individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis and to identify areas for improvement. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Systematic reviews with IPD meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials on intervention effects published in English. RESULTS: 323 IPD meta-analyses covering 21 clinical areas and published between 1991 and 2019 were included: 270 (84%) were non-Cochrane reviews and 269 (84%) were published in journals with a high impact factor (top quarter). The IPD meta-analyses showed low compliance in using a satisfactory technique to assess the risk of bias of the included randomised controlled trials (43%, 95% confidence interval 38% to 48%), accounting for risk of bias when interpreting results (40%, 34% to 45%), providing a list of excluded studies with justifications (32%, 27% to 37%), establishing an a priori protocol (31%, 26% to 36%), prespecifying methods for assessing both the overall effects (44%, 39% to 50%) and the participant-intervention interactions (31%, 26% to 36%), assessing and considering the potential of publication bias (31%, 26% to 36%), and conducting a comprehensive literature search (19%, 15% to 23%). Up to 126 (39%) IPD meta-analyses failed to obtain IPD from 90% or more of eligible participants or trials, among which only 60 (48%) provided reasons and 21 (17%) undertook certain strategies to account for the unavailable IPD. CONCLUSIONS: The methodological quality of IPD meta-analyses is unsatisfactory. Future IPD meta-analyses need to establish an a priori protocol with prespecified data syntheses plan, comprehensively search the literature, critically appraise included randomised controlled trials with appropriate technique, account for risk of bias during data analyses and interpretation, and account for unavailable IPD. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8054226 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80542262021-04-28 The methodological quality of individual participant data meta-analysis on intervention effects: systematic review Wang, Huan Chen, Yancong Lin, Yali Abesig, Julius Wu, Irene XY Tam, Wilson BMJ Research OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodological quality of individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis and to identify areas for improvement. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Systematic reviews with IPD meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials on intervention effects published in English. RESULTS: 323 IPD meta-analyses covering 21 clinical areas and published between 1991 and 2019 were included: 270 (84%) were non-Cochrane reviews and 269 (84%) were published in journals with a high impact factor (top quarter). The IPD meta-analyses showed low compliance in using a satisfactory technique to assess the risk of bias of the included randomised controlled trials (43%, 95% confidence interval 38% to 48%), accounting for risk of bias when interpreting results (40%, 34% to 45%), providing a list of excluded studies with justifications (32%, 27% to 37%), establishing an a priori protocol (31%, 26% to 36%), prespecifying methods for assessing both the overall effects (44%, 39% to 50%) and the participant-intervention interactions (31%, 26% to 36%), assessing and considering the potential of publication bias (31%, 26% to 36%), and conducting a comprehensive literature search (19%, 15% to 23%). Up to 126 (39%) IPD meta-analyses failed to obtain IPD from 90% or more of eligible participants or trials, among which only 60 (48%) provided reasons and 21 (17%) undertook certain strategies to account for the unavailable IPD. CONCLUSIONS: The methodological quality of IPD meta-analyses is unsatisfactory. Future IPD meta-analyses need to establish an a priori protocol with prespecified data syntheses plan, comprehensively search the literature, critically appraise included randomised controlled trials with appropriate technique, account for risk of bias during data analyses and interpretation, and account for unavailable IPD. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2021-04-19 /pmc/articles/PMC8054226/ /pubmed/33875446 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n736 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/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 and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Research Wang, Huan Chen, Yancong Lin, Yali Abesig, Julius Wu, Irene XY Tam, Wilson The methodological quality of individual participant data meta-analysis on intervention effects: systematic review |
title | The methodological quality of individual participant data meta-analysis on intervention effects: systematic review |
title_full | The methodological quality of individual participant data meta-analysis on intervention effects: systematic review |
title_fullStr | The methodological quality of individual participant data meta-analysis on intervention effects: systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | The methodological quality of individual participant data meta-analysis on intervention effects: systematic review |
title_short | The methodological quality of individual participant data meta-analysis on intervention effects: systematic review |
title_sort | methodological quality of individual participant data meta-analysis on intervention effects: systematic review |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8054226/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33875446 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n736 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wanghuan themethodologicalqualityofindividualparticipantdatametaanalysisoninterventioneffectssystematicreview AT chenyancong themethodologicalqualityofindividualparticipantdatametaanalysisoninterventioneffectssystematicreview AT linyali themethodologicalqualityofindividualparticipantdatametaanalysisoninterventioneffectssystematicreview AT abesigjulius themethodologicalqualityofindividualparticipantdatametaanalysisoninterventioneffectssystematicreview AT wuirenexy themethodologicalqualityofindividualparticipantdatametaanalysisoninterventioneffectssystematicreview AT tamwilson themethodologicalqualityofindividualparticipantdatametaanalysisoninterventioneffectssystematicreview AT wanghuan methodologicalqualityofindividualparticipantdatametaanalysisoninterventioneffectssystematicreview AT chenyancong methodologicalqualityofindividualparticipantdatametaanalysisoninterventioneffectssystematicreview AT linyali methodologicalqualityofindividualparticipantdatametaanalysisoninterventioneffectssystematicreview AT abesigjulius methodologicalqualityofindividualparticipantdatametaanalysisoninterventioneffectssystematicreview AT wuirenexy methodologicalqualityofindividualparticipantdatametaanalysisoninterventioneffectssystematicreview AT tamwilson methodologicalqualityofindividualparticipantdatametaanalysisoninterventioneffectssystematicreview |