iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27747915/
Meta-analysis using individual participant data: one-stage and two-stage approaches, and why they may differ - PubMed Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Feb 28;36(5):855-875.
doi: 10.1002/sim.7141. Epub 2016 Oct 16.

Meta-analysis using individual participant data: one-stage and two-stage approaches, and why they may differ

Affiliations

Meta-analysis using individual participant data: one-stage and two-stage approaches, and why they may differ

Danielle L Burke et al. Stat Med. .

Abstract

Meta-analysis using individual participant data (IPD) obtains and synthesises the raw, participant-level data from a set of relevant studies. The IPD approach is becoming an increasingly popular tool as an alternative to traditional aggregate data meta-analysis, especially as it avoids reliance on published results and provides an opportunity to investigate individual-level interactions, such as treatment-effect modifiers. There are two statistical approaches for conducting an IPD meta-analysis: one-stage and two-stage. The one-stage approach analyses the IPD from all studies simultaneously, for example, in a hierarchical regression model with random effects. The two-stage approach derives aggregate data (such as effect estimates) in each study separately and then combines these in a traditional meta-analysis model. There have been numerous comparisons of the one-stage and two-stage approaches via theoretical consideration, simulation and empirical examples, yet there remains confusion regarding when each approach should be adopted, and indeed why they may differ. In this tutorial paper, we outline the key statistical methods for one-stage and two-stage IPD meta-analyses, and provide 10 key reasons why they may produce different summary results. We explain that most differences arise because of different modelling assumptions, rather than the choice of one-stage or two-stage itself. We illustrate the concepts with recently published IPD meta-analyses, summarise key statistical software and provide recommendations for future IPD meta-analyses. © 2016 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Keywords: IPD; individual participant data; individual patient data; meta-analysis; one-stage; two-stage.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
One‐stage and two‐stage IPD meta‐analysis summary treatment effect results for (a) mean difference for final systolic blood pressure adjusting for baseline systolic blood pressure and (b) hazard ratio for cardiovascular disease. IPD, individual participant data; CI, confidence interval.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot of the one‐stage and two‐stage meta‐analysis results for the sensitivity of the PET test for diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. PET, positron emission tomography; IPD, individual participant data; ML, maximum likelihood.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Debray TP, Moons KG, van Valkenhoef G, Efthimiou O, Hummel N, Groenwold RH, Reitsma JB, GetReal Methods Review Group . Get real in individual participant data (IPD) meta‐analysis: a review of the methodology. Research Synthesis Methods 2015; 6(4):293–309. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Stewart GB, Altman DG, Askie LM, Duley L, Simmonds MC, Stewart LA. Statistical analysis of individual participant data meta‐analyses: a comparison of methods and recommendations for practice. PloS One 2012; 7(10):e46042. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Debray TP, Moons KG, Abo‐Zaid GM, Koffijberg H, Riley RD. Individual participant data meta‐analysis for a binary outcome: one‐stage or two‐stage? PloS One 2013; 8(4):e60650. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Berlin JA, Santanna J, Schmid CH, Szczech LA, Feldman HI, Anti‐Lymphocyte Antibody Induction Therapy Study Group . Individual patient‐ versus group‐level data meta‐regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly head. Statistics in Medicine 2002; 21(3):371–387. - PubMed
    1. Riley RD, Lambert PC, Abo‐Zaid G. Meta‐analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting. BMJ 2010; 340:c221. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources