Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27747915›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2017

Meta-analysis using individual participant data: one-stage and two-stage approaches, and why they may differ.

Danielle L Burke, Joie Ensor, Richard D Riley

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 268 papers, 89 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
268citing papers in PubMed, 89 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

268 citing papers in PubMed, 89 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Prognosis in Parkinson's Disease: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Six European Incidence Cohorts.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2026
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Reducing self-harm in adolescents: the RISA-IPD comprehensive synopsis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

208 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

3 authors.

Danielle L BurkeResearch Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, U.K.ORCID 0000-0003-2803-1151
Joie EnsorResearch Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, U.K.
Richard D RileyResearch Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, U.K.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/J013595/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Meta-analysis using individual participant data (IPD) obtains and synthesises the raw, participant-level data from a set of relevant studies. The IPD approach is becoming an increasingly popular tool as an alternative to traditional aggregate data meta-analysis, especially as it avoids reliance on published results and provides an opportunity to investigate individual-level interactions, such as treatment-effect modifiers. There are two statistical approaches for conducting an IPD meta-analysis: one-stage and two-stage. The one-stage approach analyses the IPD from all studies simultaneously, for example, in a hierarchical regression model with random effects. The two-stage approach derives aggregate data (such as effect estimates) in each study separately and then combines these in a traditional meta-analysis model. There have been numerous comparisons of the one-stage and two-stage approaches via theoretical consideration, simulation and empirical examples, yet there remains confusion regarding when each approach should be adopted, and indeed why they may differ. In this tutorial paper, we outline the key statistical methods for one-stage and two-stage IPD meta-analyses, and provide 10 key reasons why they may produce different summary results. We explain that most differences arise because of different modelling assumptions, rather than the choice of one-stage or two-stage itself. We illustrate the concepts with recently published IPD meta-analyses, summarise key statistical software and provide recommendations for future IPD meta-analyses. © 2016 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicCluster AnalysisHumansLikelihood FunctionsModels, StatisticalStatistics as TopicTreatment Outcomeindividual participant dataindividual patient dataIPDmeta-analysisone-stagetwo-stage

Identifiers

PMID27747915
PMCPMC5297998

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.