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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Huan, Chen, Yancong, Lin, Yali, Abesig, Julius, Wu, Irene XY, Tam, Wilson
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