Feasibility of individual patient data meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery

Abstract

BackgroundThe number of individual patient data meta-analyses published is very low especially in surgical domains. Our aim was to assess the feasibility of individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery by determining whether trialists agree to send IPD for eligible trials.MethodsWe performed a literature search to identify relevant research questions in orthopaedic surgery. For each question, we developed a protocol synopsis for an IPD meta-analysis and identified all related randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with results published since 2000. Corresponding authors of these RCTs were sent personalized emails that presented a project for an IPD meta-analysis corresponding to one of the research questions, with a link to the protocol synopsis, and asking for IPD from their RCT. We guaranteed patient confidentiality and secure data storage, and offered co-authorship and coverage of costs related to extraction.ResultsWe identified 38 research questions and 273 RCTs related to these questions. We could contact 217 of the 273 corresponding authors (79 %; 56 had unavailable or non-functional email addresses) and received 68/273 responses (25 %): 21 authors refused to share IPD, 10 stated that our request was under consideration and 37 agreed to send IPD. Four corresponding authors required authorship and three others asked for financial support to send the IPD. Overall, we could obtain IPD for 5,110 of 33,602 eligible patients (15 %). Among the 38 research questions, only one IPD meta-analysis could be potentially initiated because we could receive IPD for more than 50 % of participants.ConclusionThe present study illustrates the difficulties in initiating IPD meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery. Significant efforts must be made to improve data sharing.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0376-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Retrieval of Individual Participant Data for Exercise Meta-Analyses May Not Be Worth the Time and Effort

“…The current study resulted in a low obtainment of IPD for this exercise meta-analysis, with less than one-third of eligible studies providing IPD. The response rates observed are either similar to [ 10 , 42 ], lower than, [ 9 , 43 ] or higher [ 44 ] than previous research across a variety of different subject areas. While one might speculate that the formation of a consortium could have increased the response rate, a previous IPD meta-analysis on obesity and diabetes was only able to retrieve approximately 40% of IPD when such a consortium was established [ 42 ].…”

Statistical analyses and quality of individual participant data network meta-analyses were suboptimal: a cross-sectional study

“…We also found that the Bayesian IPD-NMAs were more likely to use the 1-stage process, and the Frequentist IPD-NMAs were more likely to use the 2-stage process. Reluctance to share data is a major obstacle to obtaining IPD and performing IPD meta-analysis [36,37]. A previous study showed that IPD sharing may depend on study characteristics, including funding type, study size, study risk of bias, and treatment effect [27].…”

Retrieval of individual patient data depended on study characteristics: a randomized controlled trial

“…[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] However, it has been suggested that reluctance to share data is still the main obstacle for obtaining IPD and performing IPD metaanalysis. [32,33] Potential reasons for this include concerns about patient confidentiality, lack of time to share IPD, not 'owning' the data, cost for de-identifying and formatting the data, or M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 6 lack of access to data by primary study authors after study completion. [32] A scoping review of indirect comparisons with IPD showed that 67% of included studies obtained IPD through the establishment of a collaborative group.…”

“…[32,33] Potential reasons for this include concerns about patient confidentiality, lack of time to share IPD, not 'owning' the data, cost for de-identifying and formatting the data, or M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 6 lack of access to data by primary study authors after study completion. [32] A scoping review of indirect comparisons with IPD showed that 67% of included studies obtained IPD through the establishment of a collaborative group. [8] Hence, the cooperation of the authors of the primary studies is crucial for providing IPD in a usable format and answering queries about their data.…”