Abstract
Meta-analysis using individual participant data (IPD-MA) from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can strengthen evidence used for decision-making, and is considered the ‘gold standard’ approach. In this paper, 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 meta-analysis. These include: standardization of definitions of outcomes and/or scales, re-analysis 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 either in a two-stage or a one-stage approach. We exemplify the presented methods using two illustrative examples. The first real-life example includes six studies assessing sonothrombolysis with or without addition of microspheres against intravenous thrombolysis alone (i.e., control) in acute ischemic stroke participants with large vessel occlusions. The second real-life example includes seven 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 aggregate data reviews. Unlike individual trials that lack power, and aggregate data 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 to retrieving IPD.
- Received June 23, 2022.
- Accepted in final form January 5, 2023.
- © 2023 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
