Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26287812›Full record

ReviewResearch synthesis methods2015

Get real in individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis: a review of the methodology.

Thomas P A Debray, Karel G M Moons, Gert van Valkenhoef, Orestis Efthimiou, Noemi Hummel, Rolf H H Groenwold, Johannes B Reitsma, GetReal Methods Review Group

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Research synthesis methods, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 160 papers, 54 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
160citing papers in PubMed, 54 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

160 citing papers in PubMed, 54 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. P2YBMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Susceptibility to online misinformation: A systematic meta-analysis of demographic and psychological factors.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

100 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Thomas P A DebrayJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Karel G M MoonsJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Gert van ValkenhoefDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Orestis EfthimiouDepartment of Hygiene and Epidemiology, School of Medicine, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece.
Noemi HummelInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Rolf H H GroenwoldJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Johannes B ReitsmaJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
GetReal Methods Review Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis is an increasingly used approach for synthesizing and investigating treatment effect estimates. Over the past few years, numerous methods for conducting an IPD meta-analysis (IPD-MA) have been proposed, often making different assumptions and modeling choices while addressing a similar research question. We conducted a literature review to provide an overview of methods for performing an IPD-MA using evidence from clinical trials or non-randomized studies when investigating treatment efficacy. With this review, we aim to assist researchers in choosing the appropriate methods and provide recommendations on their implementation when planning and conducting an IPD-MA.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicTreatment OutcomeData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansLinear ModelsModels, StatisticalProportional Hazards ModelsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSoftwarecross-designevidence synthesisIPDmeta-analysisnon-randomized intervention studiesNRSIRCTreview

Identifiers

PMID26287812
PMCPMC5042043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.