Comparison of aggregate and individual participant data approaches to meta-analysis of randomised trials: An observational study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

It remains unclear when standard systematic reviews and meta-analyses that rely on published aggregate data (AD) can provide robust clinical conclusions. We aimed to compare the results from a large cohort of systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on individual participant data (IPD) with meta-analyses of published AD, to establish when the latter are most likely to be reliable and when the IPD approach might be required.

Methods and findings

We used 18 cancer systematic reviews that included IPD meta-analyses: all of those completed and published by the Meta-analysis Group of the MRC Clinical Trials Unit from 1991 to 2010. We extracted or estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and standard errors (SEs) for survival from trial reports and compared these with IPD equiva

SUBMITTER: Tierney JF 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6993967 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature