Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41626890›Full record

ReviewResearch synthesis methods2026

How to conduct an individual participant data meta-analysis in response to an emerging pathogen: Lessons learned from Zika and COVID-19.

Lauren Maxwell, Priya Shreedhar, Laura Merson, Brooke Levis, Thomas P A Debray, Valentijn Marnix Theodoor de Jong, Ricardo Arraes de Alencar Ximenes, Thomas Jaenisch, Paul Gustafson, Mabel Carabali

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Research synthesis methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Lauren MaxwellHeidelberger Institut für Global Health, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0777-2092
Priya ShreedharHeidelberger Institut für Global Health, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Laura MersonISARIC, Pandemic Sciences Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Brooke LevisCentre for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Thomas P A DebrayJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Valentijn Marnix Theodoor de JongJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Ricardo Arraes de Alencar XimenesAvenida Moraes Rego, Cidade Universitária, Recife, Brazil.
Thomas JaenischDepartment of Epidemiology, Center for Global Health, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, CO, USA.
Paul GustafsonDepartment of Statistics, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Mabel CarabaliDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.

Funding

H2020 Health 825746Institute of Genetics 01886-000
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sharing, harmonizing, and analyzing participant-level data is of central importance in the rapid research response to emerging pathogens. Individual participant data meta-analyses (IPD-MAs), which synthesize participant-level data from related primary studies, have several advantages over pooling study-level effect estimates in a traditional meta-analysis. IPD-MAs enable researchers to more effectively separate spurious heterogeneity related to differences in measurement from clinically relevant heterogeneity from differences in underlying risk or distribution of factors that modify disease progression. This tutorial describes the steps needed to conduct an IPD-MA of an emerging pathogen and how IPD-MAs of emerging pathogens differ from those of well-studied exposures and outcomes. We discuss key statistical issues, including participant- and study-level missingness and complex measurement error, and present recommendations. We review how IPD-MAs conducted during the COVID-19 response addressed these statistical challenges when harmonizing and analyzing participant-level data related to an emerging pathogen. The guidance presented here is based on lessons learned in our conduct of IPD-MAs in the research response to emerging pathogens, including Zika virus and COVID-19.

Indexed as

Communicable Diseases, EmergingCOVID-19Meta-Analysis as TopicZika Virus InfectionData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansResearch DesignSARS-CoV-2Zika VirusELSI barriersemerging pathogensFAIR principlesindividual participant data meta-analysisinfectious diseasesmeasurement error

Identifiers

PMID41626890
PMCPMC12823201

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.