The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
To IPD or not to IPD?: Advantages and Disadvantages of Systematic Reviews Using Individual Patient Data
Abstract
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that obtain original research data on individual participants enrolled in trials have been described as the gold standard of review. However, they may take longer and be more resource intensive than other types of review. The authors describe potential advantages and disadvantages of the individual patient data (IPD) approach, including benefits from improved data quality, benefits afforded by the type of analyses that can be done, and advantages in achieving consensus around results and interpretation by an international multi disciplinary team. Disadvantages and barriers relating to resource and expertise, negotiating collaboration, and software requirements are also discussed. At the outset, reviewers should consider the methodological factors likely to influence results in their particular review setting, together with time and resource constraints, so that an active decision can be made about whether to extract data frompublished reports, collect addi tional or replacement summary data from trialists, or collect IPD.
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
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.
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
Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials: The CONSORT Statement
Begg, C. (1996) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540080059030 · Cited by 3,127
Publication bias in clinical research
Easterbrook, P. J., Gopalan, R., Berlin, J. A., & Matthews, D. R. (1991) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-y · Cited by 3,109
The Existence of Publication Bias and Risk Factors for Its Occurrence
Dickersin, K. (1990) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1990.03440100097014 · Cited by 1,417
Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects
Stern, J. M., & Simes, R. J. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.640 · Cited by 818
Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study
Tramèr, M. R., Reynolds, D. J. M., Moore, R. A., & McQuay, H. J. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.635 · Cited by 702
CHALMERS, I. (1993) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26345.x · Cited by 561
Cholinesterase Inhibition for Alzheimer Disease: A Meta-analysis of the Tacrine Trials
Qizilbash, N., Whitehead, A., Higgins, J., Wilcock, G., Schneider, L., Farlow, M., & for the Dementia Trialists' Collaboration (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.20.1777 · Cited by 161
Cited by
Stewart, L. A., Clarke, M., Rovers, M., Riley, R. D., Simmonds, M., Stewart, G., & Tierney, J. F. (2015) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2015.3656 · Cited by 2,134
Self-citationMeta-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
Kotecha, D., Holmes, J., Krum, H., Altman, D. G., Manzano, L., Cleland, J. G. F., Lip, G. Y. H., Coats, A. J. S., Andersson, B., Kirchhof, P., et al. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(14)61373-8 · Cited by 579
Simmonds, M. C., Higginsa, J. P. T., Stewartb, L. A., Tierneyb, J. F., Clarke, M. J., & Thompson, S. G. (2005) · Clinical Trials · doi:10.1191/1740774505cn087oa · Cited by 555
Verhage, M. L., Schuengel, C., Madigan, S., Fearon, R. M. P., Oosterman, M., Cassibba, R., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2016) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000038 · Cited by 550
Metadata
- Authors
- Stewart, L. A., & Tierney, J. F.
- Venue
- Evaluation & the Health Professions
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2002-03
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 76-97
- ISSN
- 0163-2787 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3918
- OpenAlex
- W2150683078
- Cited by
- 571
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 6.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: To IPD or not to IPD?: Advantages and Disadvantages of Systematic Reviews Using Individual Patient Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0163278702025001006
- The paper
- Stewart, L. A., & Tierney, J. F. (2002). To IPD or not to IPD?: Advantages and Disadvantages of Systematic Reviews Using Individual Patient Data. Evaluation & the Health Professions. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278702025001006
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.
