Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24943877›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2014

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

Doneal Thomas, Sanyath Radji, Andrea Benedetti

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 23 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 23 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed, 23 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Bayesian Meta-Analysis for Binary Data and Prior Distribution on Models.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. INFOMATAS multi-center systematic review and meta-analysis individual patient data of dynamic cerebral autoregulation in ischemic stroke.International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society · 2020
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention with cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stents versus bare metal stents: Results from a patient level meta-analysis of randomized trials.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2017
    Pooled it
  20. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Doneal Thomas
Sanyath Radji
Andrea BenedettiDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics & Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. andrea.benedetti@mcgill.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMeta-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.

methodsWe 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.

results19 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.

conclusionEvidence 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.

Indexed as

BiometryHealth Records, PersonalResearch DesignData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansLogistic ModelsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID24943877
PMCPMC4074845

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.