ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2018
Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials in the era of individual patient data sharing.
Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Advancing the role of real-world evidence in comparative effectiveness research.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Beyond Conventional Meta-Analysis: A Meta-Learning Model to Predict Cohort-Level Mortality After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR).Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Clinical Trial Endpoints in Metastatic Cancer: Using Individual Participant Data to Inform Future Trials Methodology.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2022Review
- Status, use and impact of sharing individual participant data from clinical trials: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Open Data Revolution in Clinical Research: Opportunities and Challenges.Clinical and translational science · 2020Review
- Evaluation of repositories for sharing individual-participant data from clinical studies.Trials · 2019Review
- CONSIDER Statement: Consolidated Recommendations for Sharing Individual Participant Data from Human Clinical Studies.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational ScienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIndividual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis is considered to be a gold standard when the results of several randomized trials are combined. Recent initiatives on sharing IPD from clinical trials offer unprecedented opportunities for using such data in IPD meta-analyses.
methodsFirst, we discuss the evidence generated and the benefits obtained by a long-established prospective IPD meta-analysis in early breast cancer. Next, we discuss a data-sharing system that has been adopted by several pharmaceutical sponsors. We review a number of retrospective IPD meta-analyses that have already been proposed using this data-sharing system. Finally, we discuss the role of data sharing in IPD meta-analysis in the future.
resultsTreatment effects can be more reliably estimated in both types of IPD meta-analyses than with summary statistics extracted from published papers. Specifically, with rich covariate information available on each patient, prognostic and predictive factors can be identified or confirmed. Also, when several endpoints are available, surrogate endpoints can be assessed statistically.
conclusionsAlthough there are difficulties in conducting, analyzing, and interpreting retrospective IPD meta-analysis utilizing the currently available data-sharing systems, data sharing will play an important role in IPD meta-analysis in the future.
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.