Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38009130›Full record

ArticleHarvard data science review2022

Quantitative Synthesis of Personalized Trials Studies: Meta-Analysis of Aggregated Data Versus Individual Patient Data.

Mariola Moeyaert, Joelle Fingerhut

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Harvard data science review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. N -of-1 Trials in Nephrology : Moving beyond Case Series.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2025
    Article
  2. The Family of Single-Case Experimental Designs.Harvard data science review · 2022
    Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Mariola MoeyaertUniversity at Albany-SUNY, Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology - 1400 Washington Ave, Albany, NY 12222.
Joelle FingerhutRutgers University, Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology, - 152 Frelinghuysen Rd, Piscataway, NJ 08854.

Funding

Re-engineering Precision Therapeutics Through N-of-1 TrialsR01LM012836 · NLM · FEINSTEIN INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH · PI DAVIDSON, KARINA W. · 2017 to 2023
$7.6M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM012836
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We have entered an era in which scientific knowledge and evidence increasingly inform research practice and policy. As there is an exponential increase in the use of personalized trials, there is a remarkable growing interest in the quantitative synthesis of personalized trials. One technique that is developed and can be applied for this purpose is meta-analysis. Meta-analysis involves the quantitative integration of effect sizes from several personalized trials. In this study, aggregated data (AD) and individual patient data (IPD) methods for meta-analysis of personalized trials are discussed, together with an empirical demonstration using a subset of a real meta-analytic data set. For the empirical demonstration, 26 personalized trials received usual care and yoga intervention in a randomized sequence. Results show a general consensus between the AD and IPD approach in terms of conclusions-that both usual care and the yoga intervention are effective in reducing pain. However, the IPD approach provides more information about the intervention effectiveness and intervention heterogeneity. IPD is a more flexible modeling approach, allowing for a variety of modeling options.

Indexed as

aggregated data meta-analysiseffect sizeevidence-based decision and inferencesindividual patient data meta-analysismultilevel modelingpersonalized trials

Identifiers

PMID38009130
PMCPMC10673630

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.