Cited by 348Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

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

Open access
Debray, Thomas P. A., Moons, Karel G. M., van Valkenhoef, Gert, Efthimiou, Orestis, Hummel, Noemi, Groenwold, Rolf H. H., Reitsma, Johannes B., on behalf of the GetReal methods review group·2015·Research Synthesis Methods

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. © 2015 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jrsm.1160

Cites

119 of 119 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 121 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Turner RM, Omar RZ, Yang M, Goldstein H, Thompson SG 2000 A multilevel model framework for meta‐analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes. Statistics in Medicine 19: 3417– 3432. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0258(20001230)19:24<3417::AID-SIM614>3.0.CO;2-L. 11122505 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Vaida F, Xu R 2000 Proportional hazards model with random effects. Statistics in Medicine 19: 3309– 3324. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0258(20001230)19:24<3309::AID-SIM825>3.0.CO;2-9. 11122497 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Debray, T. P. A., Moons, K. G. M., van Valkenhoef, G., Efthimiou, O., Hummel, N., Groenwold, R. H. H., Reitsma, J. B., & on behalf of the GetReal methods review group
Affiliations
  • University of Groningen (NL)
  • Department of Epidemiology University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen Groningen The Netherlands
  • University of Ioannina (GR)
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
Corresponding author
Debray, Thomas P. A.
Venue
Research Synthesis Methods
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-08-19
Volume
6
Issue
4
Pages
293-309
ISSN
  • 1759-2879 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-2887
OpenAlex
W1841651683
Cited by
348
References
121
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Research Synthesis Methods (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
Funders
  • Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking (115546)
  • European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/20072013)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
individual patient data meta-analysis, treatment effect estimation, clinical trials, non-randomized studies, methodological assumptions
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Software, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Models, Statistical, Linear Models, Proportional Hazards Models, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review