Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2015 Dec;6(4):293-309.
doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1160. Epub 2015 Aug 19.

Get real in individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis: a review of the methodology

Thomas P A Debray  1   2 , Karel G M Moons  1   2 , Gert van Valkenhoef  3 , Orestis Efthimiou  4 , Noemi Hummel  5 , Rolf H H Groenwold  1 , Johannes B Reitsma  1   2 ; GetReal Methods Review Group
Collaborators, Affiliations
Review

Get real in individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis: a review of the methodology

Thomas P A Debray et al. Res Synth Methods. 2015 Dec.

Abstract

Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis is an increasingly used approach for synthesizing and investigating treatment effect estimates. Over the past few years, numerous methods for conducting an IPD meta-analysis (IPD-MA) have been proposed, often making different assumptions and modeling choices while addressing a similar research question. We conducted a literature review to provide an overview of methods for performing an IPD-MA using evidence from clinical trials or non-randomized studies when investigating treatment efficacy. With this review, we aim to assist researchers in choosing the appropriate methods and provide recommendations on their implementation when planning and conducting an IPD-MA.

Keywords: IPD; NRSI; RCT; cross-design; evidence synthesis; meta-analysis; non-randomized intervention studies; review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of selected studies.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Abo‐Zaid GMA, Guo B, Deeks JJ, Debray TPA, Steyerberg EW, Moons KGM, Riley RD 2013. Individual participant data meta‐analyses should not ignore clustering. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 66: 865–873. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.12.017. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ahmed I, Sutton AJ, Riley RD 2012. Assessment of publication bias, selection bias, and unavailable data in meta‐analyses using individual participant data: a database survey. British Medical Journal 344: d7762 DOI:10.1136/bmj.d7762. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ali S, Mealing S, Hawkins N, Lescrauwaet B, Bjork S, Mantovani L, Lampertico P 2013. The use of individual patient‐level data (IPD) to quantify the impact of pretreatment predictors of response to treatment in chronic hepatitis b patients. BMJ Open 3: e001309 DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001309. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Barrett JK, Farewell VT, Siannis F, Tierney J, Higgins JPT 2012. Two‐stage meta‐analysis of survival data from individual participants using percentile ratios. Statistics in Medicine 31: 4296–4308. DOI:10.1002/sim.5516. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Berger ML, Martin BC, Husereau D, Worley K, Allen JD, Yang W, Quon NC, Mullins CD, Kahler KH, Crown W 2014. A questionnaire to assess the relevance and credibility of observational studies to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR‐AMCP‐NPC good practice task force report. Value in Health 17: 143–156. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2013.12.011. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types