ArticlePloS one2020
Pooling individual participant data from randomized controlled trials: Exploring potential loss of information.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Alzheimer disease seen through the lens of sex and gender.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2025Review
- Intraoperative use of the machine learning-derived nociception level monitor results in less pain in the first 90 min after surgery.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPooling individual participant data to enable pooled analyses is often complicated by diversity in variables across available datasets. Therefore, recoding original variables is often necessary to build a pooled dataset. We aimed to quantify how much information is lost in this process and to what extent this jeopardizes validity of analyses results.
methodsData were derived from a platform that was developed to pool data from three randomized controlled trials on the effect of treatment of cardiovascular risk factors on cognitive decline or dementia. We quantified loss of information using the R-squared of linear regression models with pooled variables as a function of their original variable(s). In case the R-squared was below 0.8, we additionally explored the potential impact of loss of information for future analyses. We did this second step by comparing whether the Beta coefficient of the predictor differed more than 10% when adding original or recoded variables as a confounder in a linear regression model. In a simulation we randomly sampled numbers, recoded those < = 1000 to 0 and those >1000 to 1 and varied the range of the continuous variable, the ratio of recoded zeroes to recoded ones, or both, and again extracted the R-squared from linear models to quantify information loss.
resultsThe R-squared was below 0.8 for 8 out of 91 recoded variables. In 4 cases this had a substantial impact on the regression models, particularly when a continuous variable was recoded into a discrete variable. Our simulation showed that the least information is lost when the ratio of recoded zeroes to ones is 1:1.
conclusionsLarge, pooled datasets provide great opportunities, justifying the efforts for data harmonization. Still, caution is warranted when using recoded variables which variance is explained limitedly by their original variables as this may jeopardize the validity of study results.
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.