| Title |
Statistical Analysis of Individual Participant Data Meta-Analyses: A Comparison of Methods and Recommendations for Practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0046042 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gavin B. Stewart, Douglas G. Altman, Lisa M. Askie, Lelia Duley, Mark C. Simmonds, Lesley A. Stewart |
| Abstract |
Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses that obtain "raw" data from studies rather than summary data typically adopt a "two-stage" approach to analysis whereby IPD within trials generate summary measures, which are combined using standard meta-analytical methods. Recently, a range of "one-stage" approaches which combine all individual participant data in a single meta-analysis have been suggested as providing a more powerful and flexible approach. However, they are more complex to implement and require statistical support. This study uses a dataset to compare "two-stage" and "one-stage" models of varying complexity, to ascertain whether results obtained from the approaches differ in a clinically meaningful way. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 8 | 62% |
| Canada | 2 | 15% |
| Mexico | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 15% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 85% |
| Scientists | 2 | 15% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 194 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 1% |
| Italy | 2 | 1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | 2% |
| Unknown | 175 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 45 | 23% |
| Researcher | 41 | 21% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 12 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 42 | 22% |
| Unknown | 32 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 58 | 30% |
| Psychology | 17 | 9% |
| Mathematics | 17 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 7% |
| Sports and Recreations | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 37 | 19% |
| Unknown | 45 | 23% |