Читать книгу Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis - Группа авторов - Страница 15

 Many of the principles, methods and processes of IPD meta‐analysis projects are similar to those of a conventional systematic review and meta‐analysis of aggregate data. The most substantial differences relate to the collection, checking and analysis of data at the participant level, and collaboration with the investigators responsible for the existing trials.

 Compared to using aggregate data, IPD projects can potentially provide substantial improvements to the extent and quality of data available, and give greater scope and flexibility in the analyses, for example to examine participant‐level associations.

 Important differences can occur between IPD and aggregate data meta‐analysis results. This depends on many aspects including the availability of IPD, whether IPD leads to improvements in the completeness and quantity of information, and how analysis methods planned by the IPD researchers compare with those done by original trial investigators.

 Given the additional resource requirements, it is important to consider carefully whether an IPD project is needed instead of a conventional systematic review using aggregate data. The decision will depend on the particular research question, and whether IPD would produce a more reliable and comprehensive answer than using the aggregate data already available for eligible trials.