Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, HP STR 6.131, P.O. Box 85500, Utrecht 3508 GA, The Netherlands; Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 7, MF A-613, Amsterdam 1081 BT, The Netherlands.
Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, HP STR 6.131, P.O. Box 85500, Utrecht 3508 GA, The Netherlands.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Mar;83:48-56. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.01.004. Epub 2017 Jan 23.
Meta-analyses using individual patient data (IPD) rather than aggregated data are increasingly applied to analyze sources of heterogeneity between trials and have only recently been applied to unravel multicomponent, complex interventions. This study reflects on methodological challenges encountered in two IPD meta-analyses on self-management interventions in patients with heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Critical reflection on prior IPD meta-analyses and discussion of literature.
Experience from two IPD meta-analyses illustrates methodological challenges. Despite close collaboration with principal investigators, assessing the effect of characteristics of complex interventions on the outcomes of trials is compromised by lack of sufficient details on intervention characteristics and limited data on fidelity and adherence. Furthermore, trials collected baseline variables in a highly diverse way, limiting the possibilities to study subgroups of patients in a consistent manner. Possible solutions are proposed based on lessons learnt from the methodological challenges.
Future researchers of complex interventions should pay considerable attention to the causal mechanism underlying the intervention and conducting process evaluations. Future researchers on IPD meta-analyses of complex interventions should carefully consider their own causal assumptions and availability of required data in eligible trials before undertaking such resource-intensive IPD meta-analysis.
越来越多的研究采用个体患者数据(IPD)进行荟萃分析,而不是汇总数据,以分析试验之间异质性的来源,这种方法最近才被应用于解析多成分复杂干预措施。本研究反思了两项心力衰竭或慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者自我管理干预的 IPD 荟萃分析中遇到的方法学挑战。
对先前 IPD 荟萃分析的批判性反思,并对文献进行讨论。
两项 IPD 荟萃分析的经验表明存在方法学挑战。尽管与主要研究者密切合作,但由于缺乏足够详细的干预特征信息以及对保真度和依从性的有限数据,评估复杂干预措施特征对试验结果的影响受到限制。此外,试验以高度多样化的方式收集基线变量,限制了以一致方式研究患者亚组的可能性。根据从方法学挑战中吸取的经验教训提出了可能的解决方案。
未来的复杂干预研究人员应高度关注干预措施的因果机制和实施过程评估。未来的复杂干预 IPD 荟萃分析研究人员应在进行这种资源密集型 IPD 荟萃分析之前,仔细考虑自己的因果假设以及合格试验中可用数据的情况。