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
. 2017 Apr 5:357:j1390.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.j1390.

Exploring changes over time and characteristics associated with data retrieval across individual participant data meta-analyses: systematic review

Affiliations

Exploring changes over time and characteristics associated with data retrieval across individual participant data meta-analyses: systematic review

Sarah J Nevitt et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objective To investigate whether the success rate of retrieving individual participant data (IPD) for use in IPD meta-analyses has increased over time, and to explore the characteristics associated with IPD retrieval.Design Systematic review of published IPD meta-analyses, supplemented by a reflection of the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's 20 years' experience of requesting IPD.Data sources Medline, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL Plus, and PsycINFO.Eligibility criteria for study selection IPD meta-analyses of studies of all designs and all clinical areas published in English.Results 760 IPD meta-analyses which identified studies by systematic methods that had been published between 1987 and 2015 were included. Only 188 (25%) of these IPD meta-analyses retrieved 100% of the eligible IPD for analysis, with 324 (43%) of these IPD meta-analyses retrieving 80% or more of relevant IPD. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that IPD retrieval rates have improved over time. IPD meta-analyses that included only randomised trials, had an authorship policy, included fewer eligible participants, and were conducted outside of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were associated with a high or complete IPD retrieval rate. There was no association between the source of funding of the IPD meta-analyses and IPD retrieval rate. The IPD retrieval rate of the Cochrane Epilepsy Group has declined from 83% (up to 2005) to 65% (between 2012 and 2015) and the reported reasons for lack of data availability have changed in recent years.Conclusions IPD meta-analyses are considered to be the "gold standard" for the synthesis of data from clinical research studies; however, only 25% of published IPD meta-analyses have had access to all IPD.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1
Study flow diagram of identification of eligible individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses. *Two full text articles each reported two IPD meta-analyses
Fig 2
Fig 2
Number of distinct systematic individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses published to August 2015 and proportion of IPD provided. See table 1 for proportion of IPD meta-analyses providing 100%, 80-99%,and less than 80% of IPD and the proportion of IPD not reported. Six IPD meta-analyses were published from 1987 to 1993; one was provided with less than 80% of IPD, three with 80-99% of IPD, and for two the proportion of IPD provided was not reported
Fig 3
Fig 3
Duration and outcome of data requests for 39 randomised controlled trials of antiepileptic drugs. CSDR=ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com

References

    1. Burns PB, Rohrich RJ, Chung KC. The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;128:305-10. 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318219c171 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lambert PC, Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR. A comparison of summary patient-level covariates in meta-regression with individual patient data meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2002;55:86-94. 10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00414-0 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sutton AJ, Duval SJ, Tweedie RL, Abrams KR, Jones DR. Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses. BMJ 2000;320:1574-7. 10.1136/bmj.320.7249.1574 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ 2010;340:c365. 10.1136/bmj.c365 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Stewart LA, Tierney JF. To IPD or not to IPD? Advantages and disadvantages of systematic reviews using individual patient data. Eval Health Prof 2002;25:76-97. 10.1177/0163278702025001006 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources