ArticleBioMed research international2016
Retrieval of Individual Participant Data for Exercise Meta-Analyses May Not Be Worth the Time and Effort.
Article in BioMed research international, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Systematic reviews and meta-analysis in rheumatology: a gentle introduction for clinicians.Clinical rheumatology · 2019Article
- Walking and resting blood pressure: An inter-individual response difference meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Science progressArticle
- Exercise and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors in Children and Adolescents With Obesity: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.American journal of lifestyle medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWhile individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses are considered the gold standard for meta-analysis, the feasibility of obtaining IPD may be problematic.
methodsUsing data from a previous meta-analysis of 29 studies on exercise in adults with arthritis and other rheumatic diseases, the percentage of studies in which useable IPD was provided was calculated.
resultsEight of 29 authors (28%, 95% CI = 11% to 44%) provided IPD. Using logistic regression, neither year of publication (odds ratio = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.90 to 1.27, p = 0.58) nor country (odds ratio = 1.36, 95% CI = 0.20 to 10.9, p = 1.00) was significantly associated with the obtainment of IPD.
conclusionsThe retrieval of IPD for exercise meta-analyses may not be worth the time and effort. However, further research is needed before any final recommendations can be made.
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.