ArticleBMJ public health2026
Data retrieval and harmonisation for individual participant data meta-analysis in the context of a neglected tropical disease: challenges and lessons from the Infectious Diseases Data Observatory visceral leishmaniasis data platform.
Article in BMJ public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) is the gold-standard approach for evidence synthesis. Poverty-related infectious diseases, a context in which standalone trials often have small sample sizes and consequently observe relatively few treatment failures, can benefit from this approach. Methods: In collaboration with the global research community, the Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO) has developed a data platform for visceral leishmaniasis (VL)-a neglected tropical disease (NTD), primarily to facilitate IPD-MA aimed at addressing questions of public health importance. Initially, a systematic review (SR) was undertaken to identify relevant trials since 1980 and study authors were invited to collaboratively develop the platform and participate in two IPD-MAs. IPD non-retrievability (data loss) was tracked and defined as unsuccessful attempts to contact study authors, or when the authors explicitly stated data loss, or declined participation. Results: The SR identified 147 VL trials (1983-2019), of which IPD was shared to the IDDO platform from 31 (21.1%). Reasons for data non-retrievability of 116 studies included: authors' retirement (n=42, 36.2%), data were lost (n=30, 25.9%), authors' non-response (n=22, 19.0%), authors were no longer contactable (n=17, 14.7%) and a lack of clarity over data ownership (n=5, 4.3%). The median sample size was 226 (IQR: 120-542, range: 30-1,143) for retrieved studies compared with 81 (IQR: 34-151, range: 7-3,126) for non-retrieved studies. No IPD were retrieved from trials published pre-2000 (0%, 0/63). Following solicitation, the median time to complete data harmonisation was 633 days (n=29 studies). Conclusions: Data solicitation and harmonisation steps remain underappreciated challenges in undertaking IPD-MA, particularly for NTDs where resources are severely limited. A critical mass of IPD from historical VL trials is no longer retrievable. It is imperative that further loss of such valuable data from ongoing and future trials is prevented.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.