Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36219622›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Development of a checklist of standard items for processing individual participant data from randomised trials for meta-analyses: Protocol for a modified e-Delphi study.

Kylie E Hunter, Angela C Webster, Mike Clarke, Matthew J Page, Sol Libesman, Peter J Godolphin, Mason Aberoumand, Larysa H M Rydzewska, Rui Wang, Aidan C Tan and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

16 authors.

Kylie E HunterNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2796-9220
Angela C WebsterNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Mike ClarkeSchool of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom.
Matthew J PageMethods in Evidence Synthesis Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Sol LibesmanNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Peter J GodolphinMRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0648-0992
Mason AberoumandNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Larysa H M RydzewskaMRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Rui WangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Aidan C TanNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0354-4006
Wentao LiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Ben W MolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Melina WillsonNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Vicki BrownDeakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
Talia PalaciosNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Anna Lene SeidlerNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00004/06
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Individual participant data meta-analyses enable detailed checking of data quality and more complex analyses than standard study-level synthesis of summary data based on publications. However, there is limited existing guidance on the specific systematic checks that should be undertaken to confirm and enhance data quality for individual participant data meta-analyses and how to conduct these checks. We aim to address this gap by developing a checklist of items for data quality checking and cleaning to be applied to individual participant data meta-analyses of randomised trials. This study will comprise three phases: 1) a scoping review to identify potential checklist items; 2) two e-Delphi survey rounds among an invited panel of experts followed by a consensus meeting; and 3) pilot testing and refinement of the checklist, including development of an accompanying R-markdown program to facilitate its uptake.

Indexed as

ChecklistData AccuracyConsensusDelphi TechniqueHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID36219622
PMCPMC9553056

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.