Citation map · Study

Nonlinear effects and effect modification at the participant-level in IPD meta-analysis part 2: methodological guidance is available

16 references·1 citing·43 second hop

this work references cited by second hop

References

2020Development of the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses749 cited
2016Meta-analysis using individual participant data: one-stage and two-stage approaches, and why they may differ537 cited
2009Multivariate Random-effects Meta-analysis289 cited
2017Meta-analytical methods to identify who benefits most from treatments: daft, deluded, or deft approach?219 cited
2006Covariate heterogeneity in meta‐analysis: Criteria for deciding between meta‐regression and individual patient data194 cited
2011A critical review of methods for the assessment of patient-level interactions in individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized trials, and guidance for practitioners182 cited
2020Individual participant data meta‐analysis to examine interactions between treatment effect and participant‐level covariates: Statistical recommendations for conduct and planning177 cited
2020A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why155 cited
2017Quantifying heterogeneity in individual participant data meta-analysis with binary outcomes137 cited
2015A decade of individual participant data meta-analyses: A review of current practice132 cited
2015Two-stage Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis and Generalized Forest Plots127 cited
2016One-stage individual participant data meta-analysis models: estimation of treatment-covariate interactions must avoid ecological bias by separating out within-trial and across-trial information

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work

References

Cited by