Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 279

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Meta‐analysis of continuous outcomes combining individual patient data and aggregate data

Open access
Riley, Richard D., Lambert, Paul C., Staessen, Jan A., Wang, Jiguang, Gueyffier, Francois, Thijs, Lutgarde, Boutitie, Florent·2008·Statistics in Medicine
DOI 10.1002/sim.3165
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Meta‐analysis of individual patient data (IPD) is the gold‐standard for synthesizing evidence across clinical studies. However, for some studies IPD may not be available and only aggregate data (AD), such as a treatment effect estimate and its standard error, may be obtained. In this situation, methods for combining IPD and AD are important to utilize all the available evidence. In this paper, we develop and assess a range of statistical methods for combining IPD and AD in meta‐analysis of continuous outcomes from randomized controlled trials. The methods take either a one‐step or a two‐step approach. The latter is simple, with IPD reduced to AD so that standard AD meta‐analysis techniques can be employed. The one‐step approach is more complex but offers a flexible framework to include both patient‐level and trial‐level parameters. It uses a dummy variable to distinguish IPD trials from AD trials and to constrain which parameters the AD trials estimate. We show that this is important when assessing how patient‐level covariates modify treatment effect, as aggregate‐level relationships across trials are subject to ecological bias and confounding. We thus develop models to separate within‐trial and across‐trials treatment–covariate interactions; this ensures that only IPD trials estimate the former, whilst both IPD and AD trials estimate the latter in addition to the pooled treatment effect and any between‐study heterogeneity. Extension to multiple correlated outcomes is also considered. Ten IPD trials in hypertension, with blood pressure the continuous outcome of interest, are used to assess the models and identify the benefits of utilizing AD alongside IPD. Copyright © 2007 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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.3165

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

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

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

Cited by

See all 279

Metadata

Authors
Riley, R. D., Lambert, P. C., Staessen, J. A., Wang, J., Gueyffier, F., Thijs, L., & Boutitie, F.
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-12-11
Volume
27
Issue
11
Pages
1870-1893
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
DOI
10.1002/sim.3165
OpenAlex
W2043349008
Cited by
279
References
43
FWCI
7.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.