Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40562555›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Development and validation of critical appraisal tool for individual participant data meta-analysis: protocol for a modified e-Delphi study.

Edith Ginika Otalike, Mike Clarke, Areti Angeliki Veroniki, Andrea C Tricco, David Moher, Beverley Shea, Amanda Doherty-Kirby, Ngianga-Bakwin Kandala, Joel Gagnier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

9 authors.

Edith Ginika OtalikeEpidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada eotalike@uwo.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-0070-3043
Mike ClarkeNorthern Ireland Methodology Hub, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2926-7257
Areti Angeliki VeronikiIHPME, University of Toronto Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6388-4825
Andrea C TriccoKnowledge Translation Program, University of Toronto Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4114-8971
David MoherUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Beverley SheaUniversity of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Amanda Doherty-KirbySt. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ngianga-Bakwin KandalaEpidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Joel GagnierWestern University Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, London, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIndividual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) is regarded as the gold standard for evidence synthesis. However, diverse recommendations and guidance on its conduct exist, and there is no consensus-based tool for the critical appraisal of a completed IPD-MA. We aim to close this gap by systematically identifying quality items and developing and validating a critical appraisal checklist for IPD-MA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will comprise three phases, as follows:Phase 1: a systematic methodology review to identify potential checklist domains and items; this will be conducted according to the Cochrane methods for systematic reviews and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis 2020 guidance. We will include studies that address methodological guides and essential statistical requirements for IPD-MA. We will use the proposed items to prepare a preliminary checklist for the e-Delphi study.Phase 2: at least two rounds of an e-Delphi survey will be conducted among panels with expertise in IPD-MA research, consensus development, healthcare providers, journal editors, healthcare policymakers, patients and public partners from diverse geographic locations with experience in IPD-MA. Participants will use Qualtrics software to rate items on a 5-point Likert scale. The Wilcoxon matched signed rank test will estimate response stability across rounds. Consensus on including an item will be achieved if ≥75% of the panel rates the item as 'strongly agree' or 'agree' and items will be excluded if ≥75% rates it as 'strongly disagree' or 'disagree'. A convenience sample of 10 reviewers with experience in conducting an IPD-MA will pilot-test the checklist to provide practical feedback that will be used to refine the checklist.Phase 3: critical appraisal checklist validation: to improve confidence in the tool's uptake, a subset of the e-Delphi participants and graduate students of epidemiology and biostatistics will conduct content validity and reliability testing, respectively, per the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained from the Western University Health Science Research Ethics Board in Canada. The validated checklist will be published in a peer-reviewed open-access journal and shared across the networks of this study's steering committee, Cochrane IPD-MA group and the institutions' social media platforms.

Indexed as

Delphi TechniqueMeta-Analysis as TopicChecklistHumansReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicMeta-AnalysisObservational StudyRandomized Controlled TrialSystematic Review

Identifiers

PMID40562555
PMCPMC12198787

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.