Premium
Meta‐analysis using individual participant data: one‐stage and two‐stage approaches, and why they may differ
Author(s) -
Burke Danielle L.,
Ensor Joie,
Riley Richard D.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
statistics in medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.996
H-Index - 183
eISSN - 1097-0258
pISSN - 0277-6715
DOI - 10.1002/sim.7141
Subject(s) - computer science , meta analysis , aggregate data , set (abstract data type) , raw data , aggregate (composite) , random effects model , stage (stratigraphy) , key (lock) , data science , artificial intelligence , econometrics , data mining , statistics , mathematics , medicine , materials science , computer security , composite material , programming language , paleontology , biology
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.