Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33875446›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2021

The methodological quality of individual participant data meta-analysis on intervention effects: systematic review.

Huan Wang, Yancong Chen, Yali Lin, Julius Abesig, Irene Xy Wu, Wilson Tam

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 9 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. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
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

6 authors.

Huan WangXiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, 5/F, Xiangya School of Public Health, No. 238, Shang ma Yuan ling Alley, Kaifu district, Changsha, Hunan, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7337-9005
Yancong ChenXiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, 5/F, Xiangya School of Public Health, No. 238, Shang ma Yuan ling Alley, Kaifu district, Changsha, Hunan, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4960-0413
Yali LinXiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, 5/F, Xiangya School of Public Health, No. 238, Shang ma Yuan ling Alley, Kaifu district, Changsha, Hunan, China.ORCID 0000-0002-6847-9666
Julius AbesigXiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, 5/F, Xiangya School of Public Health, No. 238, Shang ma Yuan ling Alley, Kaifu district, Changsha, Hunan, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0061-8244
Irene Xy WuXiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, 5/F, Xiangya School of Public Health, No. 238, Shang ma Yuan ling Alley, Kaifu district, Changsha, Hunan, China irenexywu@csu.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0003-3772-2376
Wilson TamAlice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, National University of Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-0641-3060

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the methodological quality of individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis and to identify areas for improvement.

designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Systematic reviews with IPD meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials on intervention effects published in English.

results323 IPD meta-analyses covering 21 clinical areas and published between 1991 and 2019 were included: 270 (84%) were non-Cochrane reviews and 269 (84%) were published in journals with a high impact factor (top quarter). The IPD meta-analyses showed low compliance in using a satisfactory technique to assess the risk of bias of the included randomised controlled trials (43%, 95% confidence interval 38% to 48%), accounting for risk of bias when interpreting results (40%, 34% to 45%), providing a list of excluded studies with justifications (32%, 27% to 37%), establishing an a priori protocol (31%, 26% to 36%), prespecifying methods for assessing both the overall effects (44%, 39% to 50%) and the participant-intervention interactions (31%, 26% to 36%), assessing and considering the potential of publication bias (31%, 26% to 36%), and conducting a comprehensive literature search (19%, 15% to 23%). Up to 126 (39%) IPD meta-analyses failed to obtain IPD from 90% or more of eligible participants or trials, among which only 60 (48%) provided reasons and 21 (17%) undertook certain strategies to account for the unavailable IPD.

conclusionsThe methodological quality of IPD meta-analyses is unsatisfactory. Future IPD meta-analyses need to establish an a priori protocol with prespecified data syntheses plan, comprehensively search the literature, critically appraise included randomised controlled trials with appropriate technique, account for risk of bias during data analyses and interpretation, and account for unavailable IPD.

Indexed as

Data AnalysisMeta-Analysis as TopicPublication BiasData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID33875446
PMCPMC8054226

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.