SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2012
Individual participant data meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies: state of the art?
Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
45 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Two-stage or not two-stage? That is the question for IPD meta-analysis projects.Research synthesis methods · 2023Pooled it
- Perioperative Factors Associated With Postoperative Delirium in Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2023Pooled it
- A systematic review of blood biomarkers with individual participant data meta-analysis of matrix metalloproteinase-7 in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.The European respiratory journal · 2022Pooled it
- Natural history of Lafora disease: a prognostic systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2021Pooled it
- The methodological quality of individual participant data meta-analysis on intervention effects: systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Pooled it
- Pragmatic methods for reviewing exceptionally large bodies of evidence: systematic mapping review and overview of systematic reviews using lung cancer survival as an exemplar.Systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Examination of Injury, Host, and Social-Environmental Moderators of Online Family Problem Solving Treatment Efficacy for Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury Using an Individual Participant Data Meta-Analytic Approach.Journal of neurotrauma · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Simulation-based power calculations for planning a two-stage individual participant data meta-analysis.BMC medical research methodology · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Multivariate meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies with multiple cut-points and/or methods of measurement.Statistics in medicine · 2015Pooled it
- Long working hours and alcohol use: systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies and unpublished individual participant data.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2015Pooled it
- Methodological issues and recommendations for systematic reviews of prognostic studies: an example from cardiovascular disease.Systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Primary squamous cell carcinomas in the thyroid gland: an individual participant data meta-analysis.Cancer medicine · 2014Pooled it
- Developing and validating risk prediction models in an individual participant data meta-analysis.BMC medical research methodology · 2014Pooled it
- Individual participant data meta-analysis for a binary outcome: one-stage or two-stage?PloS one · 2013Pooled it
- Development of risk prediction model for chronic pain after knee replacement surgery: protocol for an individual patient data meta-analysis.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2026Article
- Article
- Role of factor VIII, IX, and XI in venous thrombosis recurrence risk in adults and children: A systematic review.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2023Article
- Identifying effect modifiers of CAR-T cell therapeutic efficacy: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis protocol.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrognostic factors are associated with the risk of a subsequent outcome in people with a given disease or health condition. Meta-analysis using individual participant data (IPD), where the raw data are synthesised from multiple studies, has been championed as the gold-standard for synthesising prognostic factor studies. We assessed the feasibility and conduct of this approach.
methodsA systematic review to identify published IPD meta-analyses of prognostic factors studies, followed by detailed assessment of a random sample of 20 articles published from 2006. Six of these 20 articles were from the IMPACT (International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in traumatic brain injury) collaboration, for which additional information was also used from simultaneously published companion papers.
resultsForty-eight published IPD meta-analyses of prognostic factors were identified up to March 2009. Only three were published before 2000 but thereafter a median of four articles exist per year, with traumatic brain injury the most active research field. Availability of IPD offered many advantages, such as checking modelling assumptions; analysing variables on their continuous scale with the possibility of assessing for non-linear relationships; and obtaining results adjusted for other variables. However, researchers also faced many challenges, such as large cost and time required to obtain and clean IPD; unavailable IPD for some studies; different sets of prognostic factors in each study; and variability in study methods of measurement. The IMPACT initiative is a leading example, and had generally strong design, methodological and statistical standards. Elsewhere, standards are not always as high and improvements in the conduct of IPD meta-analyses of prognostic factor studies are often needed; in particular, continuous variables are often categorised without reason; publication bias and availability bias are rarely examined; and important methodological details and summary results are often inadequately reported.
conclusionsIPD meta-analyses of prognostic factors are achievable and offer many advantages, as displayed most expertly by the IMPACT initiative. However such projects face numerous logistical and methodological obstacles, and their conduct and reporting can often be substantially improved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.