Feasibility of individual patient data meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery

Benoît Villain · Agnès Dechartres · Patrick J. Boyer · Philippe Ravaud

27 citations0/0 files storedBMC Medicine

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Research Data Management Practices Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The number of individual patient data meta-analyses published is very low especially in surgical domains. Our aim was to assess the feasibility of individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery by determining whether trialists agree to send IPD for eligible trials. METHODS: We performed a literature search to identify relevant research questions in orthopaedic surgery. For each question, we developed a protocol synopsis for an IPD meta-analysis and identified all related randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with results published since 2000. Corresponding authors of these RCTs were sent personalized emails that presented a project for an IPD meta-analysis corresponding to one of the research questions, with a link to the protocol synopsis, and asking for IPD from their RCT. We guaranteed patient confidentiality and secure data storage, and offered co-authorship and coverage of costs related to extraction. RESULTS: We identified 38 research questions and 273 RCTs related to these questions. We could contact 217 of the 273 corresponding authors (79 %; 56 had unavailable or non-functional email addresses) and received 68/273 responses (25 %): 21 authors refused to share IPD, 10 stated that our request was under consideration and 37 agreed to send IPD. Four corresponding authors required authorship and three others asked for financial support to send the IPD. Overall, we could obtain IPD for 5,110 of 33,602 eligible patients (15 %). Among the 38 research questions, only one IPD meta-analysis could be potentially initiated because we could receive IPD for more than 50 % of participants. CONCLUSION: The present study illustrates the difficulties in initiating IPD meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery. Significant efforts must be made to improve data sharing.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 27 citations exist upstream.

References

2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 2010Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting 2014How to Make More Published Research True 2012Assessment of publication bias, selection bias, and unavailable data in meta-analyses using individual participant data: a database survey 2002THE QUALITY OF REPORTING OF RANDOMIZED TRIALS IN THE JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY FROM 1988 THROUGH 2000 2007Evidence synthesis combining individual patient data and aggregate data: a systematic review identified current practice and possible methods 2014A failed attempt to conduct an individual patient data meta-analysis 2009Individual patient meta-analysis—rewards and challenges

Cited by

2020Statistical analyses and quality of individual participant data network meta-analyses were suboptimal: a cross-sectional study

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.