Methods and characteristics of published network meta-analyses using individual patient data: protocol for a scoping review

Introduction Individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis (MA) offers advantages over aggregate MA of using standardised criteria for patient characteristics across trials, and allowing reliable investigation of subgroup effects of interventions. Network meta-analysis (NMA) allows for the comparison of multiple treatments in a comprehensive analysis and the determination of the best treatment among several competing treatments, including those that have never been compared in a head-to-head study. Including IPD in NMA may enable the prevention of misleading inferences due to several biases, such as aggregation bias. Application of IPD-NMA methods in healthcare have begun to appear in medical journals. Our objective is to conduct a scoping review of existing IPD-NMA methods, and summarise their properties. We also aim to describe the characteristics of empirical IPD-NMAs, and examine how their results are reported. Methods and analysis We will search relevant electronic databases from inception until October 2014 (eg, MEDLINE), grey literature, and Google. The scoping review will consider published and unpublished papers that report completion of an IPD-NMA, describe a method, or report the methodological quality of IPD-NMA. We will include IPD-NMA of any quantitative study (eg, experimental, quasiexperimental, observational studies). Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full-text articles, and will complete data abstraction. The anticipated outcome will be a collection of all the IPD-NMAs completed to date, and a description of their methods and reporting of results. We will create summary tables providing the characteristics of the included studies, and the various methods. Quantitative data (eg, number of patients) will be summarised by medians and IQRs, and categorical data (eg, type of effect size) by frequencies and percentages. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required as our study will not include confidential participant data and interventions. We will disseminate our results through an open access, peer-reviewed publication.

[1]  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.

[2]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Statistical Analysis of Individual Participant Data Meta-Analyses: A Comparison of Methods and Recommendations for Practice , 2012, PloS one.

[3]  Risk factors for stroke and efficacy of antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation. Analysis of pooled data from five randomized controlled trials. , 1994, Archives of internal medicine.

[4]  A. Marson,et al.  Multiple treatment comparisons in epilepsy monotherapy trials , 2007, Trials.

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

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

[7]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. , 2010, International journal of surgery.

[8]  Michele Tarsilla Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2010, Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation.

[9]  Julian P T Higgins,et al.  Recent developments in meta‐analysis , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[10]  Harris Cooper,et al.  The relative benefits of meta-analysis conducted with individual participant data versus aggregated data. , 2009, Psychological methods.

[11]  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.

[12]  Junichi Sakamoto,et al.  Individual patient-level and study-level meta-analysis for investigating modifiers of treatment effect. , 2004, Japanese journal of clinical oncology.

[13]  H. Arksey,et al.  Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework , 2005 .

[14]  Joseph C Cappelleri,et al.  Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

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

[16]  J. Jansen,et al.  Efficacy of once-daily indacaterol 75 μg relative to alternative bronchodilators in COPD: A study level and a patient level network meta-analysis , 2012, BMC Pulmonary Medicine.

[17]  D. Moher,et al.  Safety and effectiveness of antiretroviral therapies for HIV-infected women and their infants and children: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis , 2014, Systematic Reviews.

[18]  G. Lu,et al.  Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[19]  D. Moher,et al.  Comparative safety of anti-epileptic drugs among infants and children exposed in utero or during breastfeeding: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis , 2014, BMC Medicine.

[20]  Jeroen P Jansen,et al.  Network meta‐analysis of individual and aggregate level data , 2012, Research synthesis methods.

[21]  A. Sutton,et al.  Mixed treatment comparisons using aggregate and individual participant level data , 2012, Statistics in medicine.

[22]  A Whitehead,et al.  Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta-analysis. , 1996, Statistics in medicine.

[23]  P. Kearney,et al.  The effect of moderate gestational alcohol consumption during pregnancy on speech and language outcomes in children: a systematic review , 2014, Systematic Reviews.

[24]  Deborah M Caldwell,et al.  Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[25]  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.

[26]  David C Hoaglin,et al.  Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[27]  Joseph C Cappelleri,et al.  Indirect treatment comparison/network meta-analysis study questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report. , 2014, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[28]  R. Riley,et al.  Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[29]  Fujian Song,et al.  Simulation evaluation of statistical properties of methods for indirect and mixed treatment comparisons , 2012, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[30]  David Moher,et al.  An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[31]  S D Walter,et al.  The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. , 1997, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[32]  Catrin Tudur Smith,et al.  Assessing the consistency assumption by exploring treatment by covariate interactions in mixed treatment comparison meta‐analysis: individual patient‐level covariates versus aggregate trial‐level covariates , 2012, Statistics in medicine.

[33]  Blair T. Johnson,et al.  Contemporary Approaches to Meta-Analysis in Communication Research , 2008 .

[34]  Dimitris Mavridis,et al.  Characteristics of a loop of evidence that affect detection and estimation of inconsistency: a simulation study , 2014, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[35]  Christopher H. Schmid,et al.  Characteristics of Networks of Interventions: A Description of a Database of 186 Published Networks , 2014, PloS one.

[36]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. , 2010, International journal of surgery.

[37]  Nicky J Welton,et al.  NICE DSU Technical Support Document 2: A Generalised Linear Modelling Framework for Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials , 2011 .