Empirical comparison of subgroup effects in conventional and individual patient data meta-analyses

Laura Koopman · Geert J. M. G. van der Heijden · Arno Wilhelmus Hoes · Diederick E. Grobbee · Maroeska Mariet Rovers

48 citations0/0 files storedInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

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 Ear Surgery and Otitis Media Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses have been proposed as a major improvement in meta-analytic methods to study subgroup effects. Subgroup effects of conventional and IPD meta-analyses using identical data have not been compared. Our objective is to compare such subgroup effects using the data of six trials (n = 1,643) on the effectiveness of antibiotics in children with acute otitis media (AOM). METHODS: Effects (relative risks, risk differences [RD], and their confidence intervals [CI]) of antibiotics in subgroups of children with AOM resulting from (i) conventional meta-analysis using summary statistics derived from published data (CMA), (ii) two-stage approach to IPD meta-analysis using summary statistics derived from IPD (IPDMA-2), and (iii) one-stage approach to IPD meta-analysis where IPD is pooled into a single data set (IPDMA-1) were compared. RESULTS: In the conventional meta-analysis, only two of the six studies were included, because only these reported on relevant subgroup effects. The conventional meta-analysis showed larger (age < 2 years) or smaller (age > or = 2 years) subgroup effects and wider CIs than both IPD meta-analyses (age < 2 years: RDCMA -21 percent, RDIPDMA-1 -16 percent, RDIPDMA-2 -15 percent; age > or =2 years: RDCMA -5 percent, RDIPDMA-1 -11 percent, RDIPDMA-2 -11 percent). The most important reason for these discrepant results is that the two studies included in the conventional meta-analysis reported outcomes that were different both from each other and from the IPD meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This empirical example shows that conventional meta-analyses do not allow proper subgroup analyses, whereas IPD meta-analyses produce more accurate subgroup effects. We also found no differences between the one- and two-stage meta-analytic approaches.

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 — 48 citations exist upstream.

References

2000Systematic Reviews in Health Care : Meta-Analysis in Context 2002Systematic Reviews in Health Care. Meta-analysis in Context.1993Meta-analysis of the literature or of individual patient data: is there a difference?2002To IPD or not to IPD?2005Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials: a review of methods used in practice 1997Comparison of Effect Estimates from a Meta-Analysis of Summary Data from Published Studies and from a Meta-Analysis Using Individual Patient Data for Ovarian Cancer Studies 1995A comparison of meta-analytic results using literature vs individual patient data. Paternal cell immunization for recurrent miscarriage 1998Comparison of Meta-Analysis Versus Analysis of Variance of Individual Patient Data

Cited by

2023Two‐stage or not two‐stage? That is the question for IPD meta‐analysis projects 2009Individual patient meta-analysis—rewards and challenges 2019A systematic survey identified 36 criteria for assessing effect modification claims in randomized trials or meta-analyses 2013Differences in interaction and subgroup-specific effects were observed between randomized and nonrandomized studies in three empirical examples

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.