Search

Before embarking on an individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) project, researchers should consider the power of their planned IPDMA conditional on the studies promising their IPD and their characteristics. Such power estimates help inform whether the IPDMA project is worth the time and funding investment, before IPD are collected. Here, we suggest how to estimate the power of a planned IPDMA of randomised trials aiming to examine treatment-covariate interactions at the participant-level (i.e., treatment effect modifiers). We focus on a time-to-event (survival) outcome with a binary or continuous covariate, and propose an approximate analytic power calculation that conditions on the actual characteristics of trials, for example, in terms of sample sizes and covariate distributions. The proposed method has five steps: (i) extracting the following aggregate data for each group in each trial--the number of participants and events, the mean and SD for each continuous covariate, and the proportion of participants in each category for each binary covariate; (ii) specifying a minimally important interaction size; (iii) deriving an approximate estimate of Fisher's information matrix for each trial and the corresponding variance of the interaction estimate per trial, based on assuming an exponential survival distribution; (iv) deriving the estimated variance of the summary interaction estimate from the planned IPDMA, under a common-effect assumption, and (v) calculating the power of the IPDMA based on a two-sided Wald test. Stata and R code are provided and a real example provided for illustration. Further evaluation in real examples and simulations is needed.

Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) projects obtain, check, harmonise and synthesise raw data from multiple studies. When undertaking the meta-analysis, researchers must decide between a two-stage or a one-stage approach. In a two-stage approach, the IPD are first analysed separately within each study to obtain aggregate data (e.g., treatment effect estimates and standard errors); then, in the second stage, these aggregate data are combined in a standard meta-analysis model (e.g., common-effect or random-effects). In a one-stage approach, the IPD from all studies are analysed in a single step using an appropriate model that accounts for clustering of participants within studies and, potentially, between-study heterogeneity (e.g., a general or generalised linear mixed model). The best approach to take is debated in the literature, and so here we provide clearer guidance for a broad audience. Both approaches are important tools for IPDMA researchers and neither are a panacea. If most studies in the IPDMA are small (few participants or events), a one-stage approach is recommended due to using a more exact likelihood. However, in other situations, researchers can choose either approach, carefully following best practice. Some previous claims recommending to always use a one-stage approach are misleading, and the two-stage approach will often suffice for most researchers. When differences do arise between the two approaches, often it is caused by researchers using different modelling assumptions or estimation methods, rather than using one or two stages per se.

Meta-analysis is a widely used methodology to combine evidence from different sources examining a common research phenomenon, to obtain a quantitative summary of the studied phenomenon. In the medical field, multiple studies investigate the effectiveness of new treatments and meta-analysis is largely performed to generate the summary (average) treatment effect. In the meta-analysis of aggregate continuous outcomes measured in a pretest-posttest design using differences in means as the effect measure, a plethora of methods exist: analysis of final (follow-up) scores, analysis of change scores and analysis of covariance. Specialised and general-purpose statistical software is used to apply the various methods, yet, often the choice among them depends on data availability and statistical affinity. We present a new web-based tool, MA-cont:pre/post effect size, to conduct meta-analysis of continuous data assessed pre- and post-treatment using the aforementioned approaches on aggregate data and a more flexible approach of generating and analysing pseudo individual participant data. The interactive web environment, available by R Shiny, is used to create this free-to-use statistical tool, requiring no programming skills by the users. A basic statistical understanding of the methods running in the background is a prerequisite and we encourage the users to seek advice from technical experts when necessary.

BACKGROUND:Low back pain is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Exercise therapy is widely recommended to treat persistent non-specific low back pain. While evidence suggests exercise is, on average, moderately effective, there remains uncertainty about which individuals might benefit the most from exercise. METHODS:In parallel with a Cochrane review update, we requested individual participant data (IPD) from high-quality randomised clinical trials of adults with our two primary outcomes of interest, pain and functional limitations, and calculated global recovery. We compiled a master data set including baseline participant characteristics, exercise and comparison characteristics, and outcomes at short-term, moderate-term and long-term follow-up. We conducted descriptive analyses and one-stage IPD meta-analysis using multilevel mixed-effects regression of the overall treatment effect and prespecified potential treatment effect modifiers. RESULTS:We received IPD for 27 trials (3514 participants). For studies included in this analysis, compared with no treatment/usual care, exercise therapy on average reduced pain (mean effect/100 (95% CI) -10.7 (-14.1 to -7.4)), a result compatible with a clinically important 20% smallest worthwhile effect. Exercise therapy reduced functional limitations with a clinically important 23% improvement (mean effect/100 (95% CI) -10.2 (-13.2 to -7.3)) at short-term follow-up. Not having heavy physical demands at work and medication use for low back pain were potential treatment effect modifiers-these were associated with superior exercise outcomes relative to non-exercise comparisons. Lower body mass index was also associated with better outcomes in exercise compared with no treatment/usual care. This study was limited by inconsistent availability and measurement of participant characteristics. CONCLUSIONS:This study provides potentially useful information to help treat patients and design future studies of exercise interventions that are better matched to specific subgroups. PROTOCOL PUBLICATION: https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-64.

Individual participant data (IPD) meta‐analysis projects obtain, harmonise, and synthesise original data from multiple studies. Many IPD meta‐analyses of randomised trials are initiated to identify treatment effect modifiers at the individual level, thus requiring statistical modelling of interactions between treatment effect and participant‐level covariates. Using a two‐stage approach, the interaction is estimated in each trial separately and combined in a meta‐analysis. In practice, two complications often arise with continuous outcomes: examining non‐linear relationships for continuous covariates and dealing with multiple time‐points. We propose a two‐stage multivariate IPD meta‐analysis approach that summarises non‐linear treatment‐covariate interaction functions at multiple time‐points for continuous outcomes. A set‐up phase is required to identify a small set of time‐points; relevant knot positions for a spline function, at identical locations in each trial; and a common reference group for each covariate. Crucially, the multivariate approach can include participants or trials with missing outcomes at some time‐points. In the first stage, restricted cubic spline functions are fitted and their interaction with each discrete time‐point is estimated in each trial separately. In the second stage, the parameter estimates defining these multiple interaction functions are jointly synthesised in a multivariate random‐effects meta‐analysis model accounting for within‐trial and across‐trial correlation. These meta‐analysis estimates define the summary non‐linear interactions at each time‐point, which can be displayed graphically alongside confidence intervals. The approach is illustrated using an IPD meta‐analysis examining effect modifiers for exercise interventions in osteoarthritis, which shows evidence of non‐linear relationships and small gains in precision by analysing all time‐points jointly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Collecting data for an individual participant data meta‐analysis (IPDMA) project can be time consuming and resource intensive and could still have insufficient power to answer the question of interest. Therefore, researchers should consider the power of their planned IPDMA before collecting IPD. Here we propose a method to estimate the power of a planned IPDMA project aiming to synthesise multiple cohort studies to investigate the (unadjusted or adjusted) effects of potential prognostic factors for a binary outcome. We consider both binary and continuous factors and provide a three‐step approach to estimating the power in advance of collecting IPD, under an assumption of the true prognostic effect of each factor of interest. The first step uses routinely available (published) aggregate data for each study to approximate Fisher's information matrix and thereby estimate the anticipated variance of the unadjusted prognostic factor effect in each study. These variances are then used in step 2 to estimate the anticipated variance of the summary prognostic effect from the IPDMA. Finally, step 3 uses this variance to estimate the corresponding IPDMA power, based on a two‐sided Wald test and the assumed true effect. Extensions are provided to adjust the power calculation for the presence of additional covariates correlated with the prognostic factor of interest (by using a variance inflation factor) and to allow for between‐study heterogeneity in prognostic effects. An example is provided for illustration, and Stata code is supplied to enable researchers to implement the method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A clinical tool to estimate the risk of treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) in people with first-episode psychosis (FEP) would inform early detection of TRS and overcome the delay of up to 5 years in starting TRS medication. Aims: To develop and evaluate a model that could predict the risk of TRS in routine clinical practice. Method: We used data from two UK-based FEP cohorts (GAP and AESOP-10) to develop and internally validate a prognostic model that supports identification of patients at high-risk of TRS soon after FEP diagnosis. Using sociodemographic and clinical predictors, a model for predicting risk of TRS was developed based on penalised logistic regression, with missing data handled using multiple imputation. Internal validation was undertaken via bootstrapping, obtaining optimism-adjusted estimates of the model's performance. Interviews and focus groups with clinicians were conducted to establish clinically relevant risk thresholds and understand the acceptability and perceived utility of the model. Results: We included seven factors in the prediction model that are predominantly assessed in clinical practice in patients with FEP. The model predicted treatment resistance among the 1081 patients with reasonable accuracy; the model's C-statistic was 0.727 (95% CI 0.723–0.732) prior to shrinkage and 0.687 after adjustment for optimism. Calibration was good (expected/observed ratio: 0.999; calibration-in-the-large: 0.000584) after adjustment for optimism. Conclusions: We developed and internally validated a prediction model with reasonably good predictive metrics. Clinicians, patients and carers were involved in the development process. External validation of the tool is needed followed by co-design methodology to support implementation in early intervention services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) is considered the "gold-standard" for synthesizing clinical study evidence. However, gaining access to IPD can be a laborious task (if possible at all) and in practice only summary (aggregate) data are commonly available. In this work we focus on meta-analytic approaches of comparative studies where aggregate data are available for continuous outcomes measured at baseline (pre-treatment) and follow-up (post-treatment). We propose a method for constructing pseudo individual baselines and outcomes based on the aggregate data. These pseudo IPD can be subsequently analysed using standard analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) methods. Pseudo IPD for continuous outcomes reported at two timepoints can be generated using the sufficient statistics of an ANCOVA model, i.e., the mean and standard deviation at baseline and follow-up per group, together with the correlation of the baseline and follow-up measurements. Applying the ANCOVA approach, which crucially adjusts for baseline imbalances and accounts for the correlation between baseline and change scores, to the pseudo IPD, results in identical estimates to the ones obtained by an ANCOVA on the true IPD. In addition, an interaction term between baseline and treatment effect can be added. There are several modeling options available under this approach, which makes it very flexible. Methods are exemplified using reported data of a previously published IPD meta-analysis of 10 trials investigating the effect of antihypertensive treatments on systolic blood pressure, leading to identical results compared with the true IPD analysis and of a meta-analysis of fewer trials, where baseline imbalance occurred.

Many randomized trials evaluate an intervention effect on time-to-event outcomes. Individual participant data (IPD) from such trials can be obtained and combined in a so-called IPD meta-analysis (IPD-MA), to summarize the overall intervention effect. We performed a narrative literature review to provide an overview of methods for conducting an IPD-MA of randomized intervention studies with a time-to-event outcome. We focused on identifying good methodological practice for modeling frailty of trial participants across trials, modeling heterogeneity of intervention effects, choosing appropriate association measures, dealing with (trial differences in) censoring and follow-up times, and addressing time-varying intervention effects and effect modification (interactions).We discuss how to achieve this using parametric and semi-parametric methods, and describe how to implement these in a one-stage or two-stage IPD-MA framework. We recommend exploring heterogeneity of the effect(s) through interaction and non-linear effects. Random effects should be applied to account for residual heterogeneity of the intervention effect. We provide further recommendations, many of which specific to IPD-MA of time-to-event data from randomized trials examining an intervention effect.We illustrate several key methods in a real IPD-MA, where IPD of 1225 participants from 5 randomized clinical trials were combined to compare the effects of Carbamazepine and Valproate on the incidence of epileptic seizures.