AI Article Synopsis

  • The study evaluates the methodological quality of individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses in randomized controlled trials, highlighting significant areas that require improvement.
  • A total of 323 IPD meta-analyses were reviewed, revealing low compliance with critical methodological standards, such as risk of bias assessment and comprehensive literature searches.
  • Conclusions indicate that future IPD meta-analyses should prioritize creating a detailed protocol, thoroughly evaluate potential biases, and ensure high participant inclusion rates to enhance methodological quality.

Article Abstract

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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8054226PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n736DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

ipd meta-analyses
24
methodological quality
12
randomised controlled
12
controlled trials
12
risk bias
12
31% 26%
12
26% 36%
12
ipd
9
quality individual
8
individual participant
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!