Systematic reviews involving the central collection and analysis of individual participant data (IPD) usually are larger-scale, international, collaborative projects that can bring about substantial improvements to the quantity and quality of data, give greater scope in the analyses, and provide more detailed and robust results. Following this step-by-step guide will help reviewers and users of IPD meta-analyses to understand them better and recognise those that are well designed and conducted and so help ensure that policy, practice, and research are informed by robust evidence about the effects of interventions.

http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001855

References

  1. Higgins JPT, Green SJ, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2008

  2. Sterne JAC, Egger M, Moher D, on behalf of the Cochrane Bias Methods Group. Addressing reporting biases. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester: Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2008. p. 297–333.

  3. Stewart LA, Clarke MJ, on behalf of the Cochrane Working Party Group on Meta-analysis using Individual Patient Data. Practical methodology of meta-analyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data. Stat Med. 1995;14:2057–79. pmid:8552887 doi: 10.1002/sim.4780141902

Reply

Please Sign in (or Register) to view further.