Nevitt Sarah J, Marson Anthony G, Davie Becky, Reynolds Sally, Williams Lisa, Smith Catrin Tudur
Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GL, UK
Department of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
BMJ. 2017 Apr 5;357:j1390. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j1390.
To investigate whether the success rate of retrieving individual participant data (IPD) for use in IPD meta-analyses has increased over time, and to explore the characteristics associated with IPD retrieval. Systematic review of published IPD meta-analyses, supplemented by a reflection of the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's 20 years' experience of requesting IPD. Medline, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL Plus, and PsycINFO. IPD meta-analyses of studies of all designs and all clinical areas published in English. 760 IPD meta-analyses which identified studies by systematic methods that had been published between 1987 and 2015 were included. Only 188 (25%) of these IPD meta-analyses retrieved 100% of the eligible IPD for analysis, with 324 (43%) of these IPD meta-analyses retrieving 80% or more of relevant IPD. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that IPD retrieval rates have improved over time. IPD meta-analyses that included only randomised trials, had an authorship policy, included fewer eligible participants, and were conducted outside of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were associated with a high or complete IPD retrieval rate. There was no association between the source of funding of the IPD meta-analyses and IPD retrieval rate. The IPD retrieval rate of the Cochrane Epilepsy Group has declined from 83% (up to 2005) to 65% (between 2012 and 2015) and the reported reasons for lack of data availability have changed in recent years. IPD meta-analyses are considered to be the "gold standard" for the synthesis of data from clinical research studies; however, only 25% of published IPD meta-analyses have had access to all IPD.
为了调查用于个体参与者数据(IPD)荟萃分析的IPD检索成功率是否随时间有所提高,并探索与IPD检索相关的特征。对已发表的IPD荟萃分析进行系统评价,并结合Cochrane癫痫小组20年索取IPD的经验进行思考。检索了Medline、CENTRAL、Scopus、Web of Science、CINAHL Plus和PsycINFO数据库。纳入了所有设计和所有临床领域的英文研究的IPD荟萃分析。共纳入760项通过系统方法识别研究且发表于1987年至2015年之间的IPD荟萃分析。其中只有188项(25%)IPD荟萃分析检索到了100%的合格IPD用于分析,324项(43%)IPD荟萃分析检索到了80%或更多的相关IPD。没有足够证据表明IPD检索率随时间有所提高。仅纳入随机试验、有作者政策、纳入合格参与者较少以及在Cochrane系统评价数据库之外进行的IPD荟萃分析与高IPD检索率或完整IPD检索率相关。IPD荟萃分析的资金来源与IPD检索率之间没有关联。Cochrane癫痫小组的IPD检索率已从83%(截至2005年)降至65%(2012年至2015年之间),且近年来报告的数据不可用原因有所变化。IPD荟萃分析被认为是临床研究数据综合的“金标准”;然而,只有25%已发表的IPD荟萃分析能够获取所有IPD。