The DOI matches its Crossref record; 119 of the 121 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Get real in individual participant data (IPD) meta‐analysis: a review of the methodology
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Figures
Verification
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“more advanced (so-called one-stage) approaches exist to directly combine the IPD with published summary data.67”
From A framework for meta-analysis of prediction model studies with binary and time-to-event outcomes (2019) · cites this paper as [67]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys
Rubin, D. B. (1987) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9780470316696 · Cited by 20,701
Schafer, J. L. (1999) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/096228029900800102 · Cited by 3,949
Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs
Concato, J., Shah, N., & Horwitz, R. I. (2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200006223422507 · Cited by 3,563
Review: a gentle introduction to imputation of missing values.
Donders, A. R. T., van der Heijden, G. J. M. G., Stijnen, T., & Moons, K. G. M. (2006) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.01.014 · Cited by 2,582
Self-citationGuyot, P., Ades, A. E., Ouwens, M., & Welton, N. J. (2012) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-9 · Cited by 2,560
Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting
Riley, R. D., Lambert, P. C., & Abo-Zaid, G. (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c221 · Cited by 1,701
Royston, P. J., & Parmar, M. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1203 · Cited by 1,537
Comparison of Evidence of Treatment Effects in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.286.7.821 · Cited by 919
Zero‐Inflated Poisson and Binomial Regression with Random Effects: A Case Study
Hall, D. B. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.01030.x · Cited by 918
Stijnen, T., Hamza, T. H., & Özdemir, P. (2010) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4040 · Cited by 757
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Efthimiou O, 2015, Methods for network meta‐analysis: a review, Research Synthesis Methods
- 10.1002/1097-0258(20001230)19:24<3417::AID-SIM614>3.0.CO;2-L · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/1097-0258(20001230)19:24<3309::AID-SIM825>3.0.CO;2-9 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Theobald, E. J., Hill, M. J., Tran, E., Agrawal, S., Arroyo, E. N., Behling, S., Chambwe, N., Cintrón, D. L., Cooper, J. D., Dunster, G., et al. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1916903117 · Cited by 1,387
Burke, D. L., Ensor, J., & Riley, R. D. (2017) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.7141 · Cited by 538
Bally, M., Dendukuri, N., Rich, B., Nadeau, L., Helin‐Salmivaara, A., Garbe, E., & Brophy, J. M. (2017) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.j1909 · Cited by 561
GetReal in network meta-analysis: a review of the methodology
Efthimiou, O., Debray, T. P. A., van Valkenhoef, G., Trelle, S., Panayidou, K., Moons, K. G. M., Reitsma, J. B., Shang, A., Salanti, G., & on behalf of GetReal Methods Review Group (2016) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1195 · Cited by 401
Self-citationA framework for meta-analysis of prediction model studies with binary and time-to-event outcomes
Debray, T. P., Damen, J. A., Riley, R. D., Snell, K., Reitsma, J. B., Hooft, L., Collins, G. S., & Moons, K. G. (2019) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/0962280218785504 · Cited by 278
Self-citation
Metadata
- 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.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Research Synthesis Methods
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-08-19
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 293-309
- ISSN
- 1759-2879 (ISSN-L)
- 1759-2887
- PMC
- PMC5042043
- 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
- FWCI
- 3.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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
