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

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.

[1]  A J Sutton,et al.  Meta‐analysis of individual‐ and aggregate‐level data , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[2]  S. Richardson,et al.  Hierarchical related regression for combining aggregate and individual data in studies of socio‐economic disease risk factors , 2007 .

[3]  M C Simmonds,et al.  Covariate heterogeneity in meta‐analysis: Criteria for deciding between meta‐regression and individual patient data , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[4]  Richard D Riley,et al.  Evidence synthesis combining individual patient data and aggregate data: a systematic review identified current practice and possible methods. , 2007, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[5]  John R Thompson,et al.  Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and the estimation of between-study correlation , 2007, BMC medical research methodology.

[6]  Sylvia Richardson,et al.  Improving ecological inference using individual‐level data , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[7]  Cai-rong Zhu,et al.  [The multi-level Meta analysis model combining individual level data with aggregative level data]. , 2005, Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition.

[8]  Mark C Simmonds,et al.  Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials: a review of methods used in practice , 2005, Clinical trials.

[9]  Paula R Williamson,et al.  Investigating heterogeneity in an individual patient data meta‐analysis of time to event outcomes , 2005, Statistics in medicine.

[10]  François Gueyffier,et al.  Systolic and Diastolic Blood Pressure Lowering as Determinants of Cardiovascular Outcome , 2005, Hypertension.

[11]  Simon G Thompson,et al.  Can meta-analysis help target interventions at individuals most likely to benefit? , 2005, The Lancet.

[12]  Paul Landais,et al.  Meta-regression detected associations between heterogeneous treatment effects and study-level, but not patient-level, factors. , 2004, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[13]  Michael K Parides,et al.  Separation of individual‐level and cluster‐level covariate effects in regression analysis of correlated data , 2003, Statistics in medicine.

[14]  L. Stewart,et al.  To IPD or not to IPD? , 2002, Evaluation & the health professions.

[15]  Theo Stijnen,et al.  Advanced methods in meta‐analysis: multivariate approach and meta‐regression , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[16]  Harold I Feldman,et al.  Individual patient‐ versus group‐level data meta‐regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly head , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[17]  P C Lambert,et al.  Analysis of ambulatory blood pressure monitor data using a hierarchical model incorporating restricted cubic splines and heterogeneous within‐subject variances , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

[18]  N. Scott,et al.  Are trials with individual patient data available different from trials without individual patient data available , 2001 .

[19]  D. Altman,et al.  Statistics notes: Analysing controlled trials with baseline and follow up measurements. , 2001, BMJ.

[20]  A Whitehead,et al.  Meta‐analysis of ordinal outcomes using individual patient data , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

[21]  A Whitehead,et al.  Meta‐analysis of continuous outcome data from individual patients , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

[22]  N. Scott,et al.  Open Mesh versus non‐Mesh for groin hernia repair , 2001 .

[23]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Predictive modeling and heterogeneity of baseline risk in meta-analysis of individual patient data. , 2001, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[24]  B. Leroux,et al.  Between-subject and within-subject Statistical Information in Dental Research , 2000, Journal of dental research.

[25]  T. Mathew,et al.  On the Equivalence of Meta‐Analysis Using Literature and Using Individual Patient Data , 1999, Biometrics.

[26]  J A Staessen,et al.  Comparison of active treatment and placebo in older Chinese patients with isolated systolic hypertension , 1998, Journal of hypertension.

[27]  J. Kalbfleisch,et al.  Between- and within-cluster covariate effects in the analysis of clustered data. , 1998, Biometrics.

[28]  I Olkin,et al.  Comparison of meta-analysis versus analysis of variance of individual patient data. , 1998, Biometrics.

[29]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough , 1998, The Lancet.

[30]  Jan A Staessen,et al.  Randomised double-blind comparison of placebo and active treatment for older patients with isolated systolic hypertension , 1997, The Lancet.

[31]  S. Pocock,et al.  INDANA: a meta-analysis on individual patient data in hypertension. Protocol and preliminary results. , 1995, Therapie.

[32]  C S Berkey,et al.  A random-effects regression model for meta-analysis. , 1995, Statistics in medicine.

[33]  S G Thompson,et al.  Systematic Review: Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated , 1994, BMJ.

[34]  M. Parmar,et al.  Meta-analysis of the literature or of individual patient data: is there a difference? , 1993, The Lancet.

[35]  N. Laird,et al.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials. , 1986, Controlled clinical trials.

[36]  C. Bulpitt,et al.  Mortality and Morbidity Results from the European Working Party on High Blood Pressure in the Elderly Trial , 1985, The Lancet.

[37]  K Hirschhorn,et al.  Letter: Immunotherapy for colorectal cancer. , 1976, Lancet.

[38]  Richard D Riley,et al.  An alternative model for bivariate random-effects meta-analysis when the within-study correlations are unknown. , 2008, Biostatistics.

[39]  T. Dwyer,et al.  A discussion of some statistical methods for separating within-pair associations from associations among all twins in research on fetal origins of disease. , 2005, Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology.

[40]  P C Lambert,et al.  A comparison of summary patient-level covariates in meta-regression with individual patient data meta-analysis. , 2002, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[41]  N. Scott,et al.  Open mesh versus non-mesh for repair of femoral and inguinal hernia. , 2002, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[42]  Paula R. Williamson,et al.  The value of the aggregate data approach in meta‐analysis with time‐to‐event outcomes , 2001 .

[43]  H. Goldstein,et al.  Meta‐analysis using multilevel models with an application to the study of class size effects , 2000 .

[44]  Mike Clarke,et al.  Combination chemotherapy versus melphalan plus prednisone as treatment for multiple myeloma: an overview of 6,633 patients from 27 randomized trials. Myeloma Trialists' Collaborative Group. , 1998, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[45]  E. O’Brien,et al.  Randomised double-blind comparison of placebo and active treatment for older patients with isolated systolic hypertension. The Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial Investigators. , 1997, Lancet.

[46]  C D Naylor,et al.  Meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. , 1989, The Journal of rheumatology.