Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000003312
Title: Comparing the Overall Result and Interaction in Aggregate Data Meta-Analysis and Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis
Authors: Huang, Y
Tang, J
Tam, W.W.-S 
Mao, C
Yuan, J
Di, M
Yang, Z
Keywords: aggregate data meta analysis
Article
cardiovascular disease
comorbidity
comparative effectiveness
data extraction
disease severity
human
individual patient data meta analysis
intention to treat analysis
meta analysis (topic)
patient coding
priority journal
sensitivity analysis
study design
comparative study
meta analysis (topic)
Meta-Analysis as Topic
Issue Date: 2016
Publisher: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins
Citation: Huang, Y, Tang, J, Tam, W.W.-S, Mao, C, Yuan, J, Di, M, Yang, Z (2016). Comparing the Overall Result and Interaction in Aggregate Data Meta-Analysis and Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis. Medicine (United States) 95 (14) : e3312. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000003312
Rights: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Abstract: The aim of the study was to examine how well aggregate data meta-Analyses (ADMAs) and individual patient data meta-Analyses (IPDMAs) agree in their overall results and how frequently interactions are detected in IPDMAs and ADMAs. ADMA articles immediately published before the IPDMA and matching the research topic were identified. Agreement in the overall result was achieved if the estimate was in the same direction. The number of subgroup analyses, in particular that of significant interactions, was compared between the 2 types of meta-Analyses. A total of 829 IPDMA articles were identified; 129 (15.6%) were found to have a matched ADMA article and 204 paired meta-Analyses were identified. Agreement in the overall effect was observed in 187 (91.7%) of the 204 paired meta-Analyses. Fifty-three (26.0%) ADMAs and 121 (59.3%) IPDMAs conducted subgroup analyses and presented 150 and 634 subgroup analyses, respectively. The IPDMAs conducted 7 times more subgroup analyses on interaction (544 in IPDMAs vs 68 in ADMAs) and identified 14 times more potential interactions (44 in IPDMAs vs 3 in ADMAs). ADMAs will almost always agree with their corresponding IPDMAs in the overall result if greater efforts are made to improve the methodology in conducting ADMAs. The IPDMA is required mostly if interactions are suspected. © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Source Title: Medicine (United States)
URI: https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/179587
ISSN: 0025-7974
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003312
Rights: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Appears in Collections:Elements
Staff Publications

Show full item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
10_1097_MD_0000000000003312.pdf336.66 kBAdobe PDF

OPEN

NoneView/Download

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

16
checked on Apr 7, 2021

Page view(s)

41
checked on Apr 8, 2021

Download(s)

1
checked on Apr 8, 2021

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons