ArticleResearch synthesis methods2020
Random-effects meta-analysis of combined outcomes based on reconstructions of individual patient data.
Article in Research synthesis methods, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of Non-pharmacological Interventions for Reducing Anxiety in Endoscopy and Colonoscopy Procedures: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative cardiometabolic effects of high, moderate, and low intensity exercise in polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC women's health · 2026Pooled it
- Distributed Cox proportional hazards regression using summary-level information.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2023Pooled it
- Weekly versus tri-weekly paclitaxel with carboplatin for first-line treatment in women with epithelial ovarian cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: A One-Stage Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Comparative efficacy of intralesional therapies for keloid scars: a network meta-analysis.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative Efficacy of Herbal Products on Metabolic Parameters in Metabolic-Dysfunction Associated Liver Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Gastro hep advances · 2026Review
- Comparative Efficacy of Herbal Products for Improving Liver Enzymes and Inflammation in Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Gastro hep advances · 2026Review
- The past, present and future use of technology-enabled physical activity interventions in clinical and non-clinical populations: a bibliometric trend analysis across four decades.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Meta-analyses of clinical trials typically focus on one outcome at a time. However, treatment decision-making depends on an overall assessment of outcomes balancing benefit in various domains and potential risks. This calls for meta-analysis methods for combined outcomes that encompass information from different domains. When individual patient data (IPD) are available from all studies, combined outcomes can be calculated for each individual and standard meta-analysis methods would apply. However, IPD are usually difficult to obtain. We propose a method to estimate the overall treatment effect for combined outcomes based on first reconstructing pseudo IPD from available summary statistics and then pooling estimates from multiple reconstructed datasets. We focus on combined outcomes constructed from two continuous original outcomes. The reconstruction step requires the specification of the joint distribution of these two original outcomes, including the correlation which is often unknown. For outcomes that are combined in a linear fashion, misspecifications of this correlation affect efficiency, but not consistency, of the resulting treatment effect estimator. For other combined outcomes, an accurate estimate of the correlation is necessary to ensure the consistency of treatment effect estimates. To this end, we propose several ways to estimate this correlation under different data availability scenarios. We evaluate the performance of the proposed methods through simulation studies and apply these to two examples: (a) a meta-analysis of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors vs control on treating type 2 diabetes; and (b) a meta-analysis of positive airway pressure therapy vs control on lowering blood pressure among patients with obstructive sleep apnea.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.