Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36797070›Full record

SynthesisNeurology2023

An Introduction to Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis.

Areti Angeliki Veroniki, Georgios Seitidis, Georgios Tsivgoulis, Aristeidis H Katsanos, Dimitris Mavridis

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Individual patient data meta-analysis of the effects of fluoxetine on functional outcomes after acute stroke.International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society · 2024
    Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Testing nature-based biopsychosocial resilience theory: a research programme protocol.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Areti Angeliki VeronikiFrom the Knowledge Translation Program (A.A.V.), Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto; Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation (A.A.V.), University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Primary Education (G.S., D.M.), School of Education, University of Ioannina, Greece; Department of Neurology (G.T.), University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, Memphis; Second Department of Neurology (G.T.), Attikon University Hospital, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece; Division of Neurology (A.H.K.), McMaster University/Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; and Faculté de Médecine (D.M.), Université Paris Descartes, France. a.veroniki@utoronto.ca.
Georgios SeitidisFrom the Knowledge Translation Program (A.A.V.), Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto; Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation (A.A.V.), University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Primary Education (G.S., D.M.), School of Education, University of Ioannina, Greece; Department of Neurology (G.T.), University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, Memphis; Second Department of Neurology (G.T.), Attikon University Hospital, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece; Division of Neurology (A.H.K.), McMaster University/Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; and Faculté de Médecine (D.M.), Université Paris Descartes, France.ORCID 0000-0003-0856-1892
Georgios TsivgoulisFrom the Knowledge Translation Program (A.A.V.), Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto; Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation (A.A.V.), University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Primary Education (G.S., D.M.), School of Education, University of Ioannina, Greece; Department of Neurology (G.T.), University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, Memphis; Second Department of Neurology (G.T.), Attikon University Hospital, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece; Division of Neurology (A.H.K.), McMaster University/Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; and Faculté de Médecine (D.M.), Université Paris Descartes, France.
Aristeidis H KatsanosFrom the Knowledge Translation Program (A.A.V.), Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto; Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation (A.A.V.), University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Primary Education (G.S., D.M.), School of Education, University of Ioannina, Greece; Department of Neurology (G.T.), University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, Memphis; Second Department of Neurology (G.T.), Attikon University Hospital, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece; Division of Neurology (A.H.K.), McMaster University/Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; and Faculté de Médecine (D.M.), Université Paris Descartes, France.
Dimitris MavridisFrom the Knowledge Translation Program (A.A.V.), Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto; Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation (A.A.V.), University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Primary Education (G.S., D.M.), School of Education, University of Ioannina, Greece; Department of Neurology (G.T.), University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, Memphis; Second Department of Neurology (G.T.), Attikon University Hospital, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece; Division of Neurology (A.H.K.), McMaster University/Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; and Faculté de Médecine (D.M.), Université Paris Descartes, France.
St. Michael's Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Meta-analysis using individual participant data (IPD-MA) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can strengthen evidence used for decision making and is considered the "gold standard" approach. In this study, we present the importance, properties, and main approaches of conducting an IPD-MA. We exemplify the main approaches of conducting an IPD-MA and how these can be used to obtain subgroup effects through estimation of interaction terms. IPD-MA has several benefits over traditional aggregate data (AD) meta-analysis. These include standardization of definitions of outcomes and/or scales, reanalysis of eligible RCTs using the same analysis model across all studies, accounting for missing outcome data, detecting outliers, using participant-level covariates to explore intervention-by-covariate interactions, and tailoring intervention effects to participant characteristics. IPD-MA can be performed in either a 2-stage or 1-stage approach. We exemplify the presented methods using 2 illustrative examples. The first real-life example includes 6 studies assessing sonothrombolysis with or without addition of microspheres against IV thrombolysis alone (i.e., control) in acute ischemic stroke participants with large vessel occlusions. The second real-life example includes 7 studies evaluating the association between blood pressure levels after endovascular thrombectomy and functional improvement of acute ischemic stroke in patients with large vessel occlusion. IPD reviews can be associated with higher quality statistical analysis and may differ from AD reviews. Unlike individual trials that lack power and AD meta-analysis results, which suffer from confounding and aggregation bias, the use of IPD allows us to explore intervention-by-covariate interactions. However, a key limitation of conducting an IPD-MA is retrieval of IPD from original RCTs. Time and resources should be carefully planned before embarking on retrieving IPD.

Indexed as

Research DesignVascular DiseasesBiasHumans

Identifiers

PMID36797070
PMCPMC10256124
OpenAlexW4321018817

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.