Trials number, funding support, and intervention type associated with IPDMA data retrieval: a cross-sectional study

Wu, Irene Xin Yin; Xiao, Fang; Wang, Huan; Chen, Yan‐Cong; Zhang, Zixuan; Lin, Yali; Tam, Wilson W.S.

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.011

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The release of PRISMA-IPD might help improve reporting and facilitate the critical appraisal of future IPD meta-analyses 26. Assessing the reporting of the sampled IPD meta-analyses comprehensively is beyond the scope of this study, but it has been covered previously 39…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The methodological quality of individual participant data meta-analysis on intervention effects: systematic review

Wang

Chen

Lin

et al. 2021

BMJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To assess the methodological quality of individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis and to identify areas for improvement. Design Systematic review. Data sources Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Systematic reviews with IPD meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials on intervention effects published in English. Results 323 IPD meta-analyses covering 21 clinical areas and published between 1991 and 2019 were included: 270 (84%) were non-Cochrane reviews and 269 (84%) were published in journals with a high impact factor (top quarter). The IPD meta-analyses showed low compliance in using a satisfactory technique to assess the risk of bias of the included randomised controlled trials (43%, 95% confidence interval 38% to 48%), accounting for risk of bias when interpreting results (40%, 34% to 45%), providing a list of excluded studies with justifications (32%, 27% to 37%), establishing an a priori protocol (31%, 26% to 36%), prespecifying methods for assessing both the overall effects (44%, 39% to 50%) and the participant-intervention interactions (31%, 26% to 36%), assessing and considering the potential of publication bias (31%, 26% to 36%), and conducting a comprehensive literature search (19%, 15% to 23%). Up to 126 (39%) IPD meta-analyses failed to obtain IPD from 90% or more of eligible participants or trials, among which only 60 (48%) provided reasons and 21 (17%) undertook certain strategies to account for the unavailable IPD. Conclusions The methodological quality of IPD meta-analyses is unsatisfactory. Future IPD meta-analyses need to establish an a priori protocol with prespecified data syntheses plan, comprehensively search the literature, critically appraise included randomised controlled trials with appropriate technique, account for risk of bias during data analyses and interpretation, and account for unavailable IPD.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The methodological quality of individual participant data meta-analysis on intervention effects: systematic review

Wang

Chen

Lin

et al. 2021

BMJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To meet the challenges in updating systematic reviews due to increasing number of publications, it is urgent to develop a convenient automatic screening tool with high sensitivity and specificity to support NMA updates. For IPD‐NMAs, reviewers need to request IPD from the authors of the original studies or collect through data‐sharing platforms 114–116 . However, IPD retrieval was generally disappointing, with only 25% to 59.8% of IPD meta‐analyses obtained IPD from all included studies 114,116–118 .…”

Section: Challenges Of Network Meta‐analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For IPD-NMAs, reviewers need to request IPD from the authors of the original studies or collect through data-sharing platforms. [114][115][116] However, IPD retrieval was generally disappointing, with only 25% to 59.8% of IPD meta-analyses obtained IPD from all included studies. 114,[116][117][118] Therefore, more efforts are still required to improve IPD data sharing.…”

Section: Data Retrievalmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Progress and challenges of network meta‐analysis

Tian

Gao

Zhang

et al. 2021

J Evidence Based Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Only 25% of the IPD meta-analyses published up to the year 2015 retrieved 100% of the eligible IPD, and 43% retrieved data on no more than 80% of participants 2 6. IPD retrieval has been found to be greatest in systematic reviews with meta-analyses that have funding support, asses non-pharmacological interventions, include fewer studies and have researchers who were coauthors of at least one eligible RCT 12…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrieval barriers in individual participant data reviews with network meta-analysis

Veroniki

Stewart

et al. 2022

BMJ EBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesIndividual participant data (IPD) from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be used in network meta-analysis (NMA) to underpin patient care and are the best analyses to support the development of guidelines about the use of healthcare interventions for a specific condition. However, barriers to IPD retrieval pose a major threat. The aim of this study was to present barriers we encountered during retrieval of IPD from RCTs in two published systematic reviews with IPD-NMA.MethodsWe evaluated retrieval of IPD from RCTs for IPD-NMA in Alzheimer’s dementia and type 1 diabetes. We requested IPD from authors, industry sponsors and data repositories, and recorded IPD retrieval, reasons for IPD unavailability, and retrieval challenges.ResultsIn total, we identified 108 RCTs: 78 industry sponsored, 11 publicly sponsored and 19 with no funding information. After failing to obtain IPD from any trial authors, we requested it from industry sponsors. Seven of the 17 industry sponsors shared IPD for 12 950 participants (59%) through proprietary-specific data sharing platforms from 26 RCTs (33%). We found that lack of RCT identifiers (eg, National Clinical Trial number) and unclear data ownership were major challenges in IPD retrieval. Incomplete information in retrieved datasets was another important problem that led to exclusion of RCTs from the NMA. There were also practical challenges in obtaining IPD from or analysing it within platforms, and additional costs were incurred in accessing IPD this way.ConclusionsWe found no clear evidence of retrieval bias (where IPD availability was linked to trial findings) in either IPD-NMA, but because retrieval bias could impact NMA findings, subsequent decision-making and guideline development, this should be considered when assessing risk of bias in IPD syntheses.

show abstract

Trials number, funding support, and intervention type associated with IPDMA data retrieval: a cross-sectional study

Cited by 6 publications

References 41 publications

The methodological quality of individual participant data meta-analysis on intervention effects: systematic review

The methodological quality of individual participant data meta-analysis on intervention effects: systematic review

Progress and challenges of network meta‐analysis

Retrieval barriers in individual participant data reviews with network meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About