A systematic review of analytical methods used to study subgroups in (individual patient data) meta-analyses

Laura Koopman, Geert J. M. G. van der Heijden, Paul P. Glasziou, Diederick E. Grobbee, Maroeska M. Rovers

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To determine whether individual patient data meta-analyses (IPDMA) are used to perform subgroup analyses and to study whether the analytical methods regarding subgroup analyses differ between IPDMA and conventional meta-analyses (CMA).

Study Design and Setting: IPDMA were identified with a comprehensive literature search, subsequently, CMA on similar research questions were traced. Methods for studying subgroups were compared for IPDMA and CMA that were matched with respect to domain, type of treatment, and outcome measure.

Results: Of all 171 identified IPDMA and 102 CMA, 80% and 45% presented subgroup analyses, respectively. For 35 IPDMA and 37 "matched" CMA, subgroup analytic methods could be compared. The number of performed subgroup analyses did not differ between IPDMA and CMA. Both IPDMA and CMA often do not report adequate information on methods of analyses. Interaction tests were often not performed in IPDMA (69%) and individual patient data was often not directly modelled (74%).

Conclusion: Many IPDMA performed subgroup analyses, but overall treatment effects were more emphasized than subgroup effects. To study subgroups, a wide variety of analytical methods was used in both IPDMA and CMA. In general, the use and reporting of appropriate methods for subgroup analyses should be promoted. Recommendations for improvement of methods of analyses are provided. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1002-1009
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume60
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2007
Externally publishedYes

Cite this

Koopman, Laura ; van der Heijden, Geert J. M. G. ; Glasziou, Paul P. ; Grobbee, Diederick E. ; Rovers, Maroeska M. / A systematic review of analytical methods used to study subgroups in (individual patient data) meta-analyses. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2007 ; Vol. 60, No. 10. pp. 1002-1009.
@article{7d82baab3f3d44ba9286ab50d116288d,
title = "A systematic review of analytical methods used to study subgroups in (individual patient data) meta-analyses",
abstract = "Objectives: To determine whether individual patient data meta-analyses (IPDMA) are used to perform subgroup analyses and to study whether the analytical methods regarding subgroup analyses differ between IPDMA and conventional meta-analyses (CMA).Study Design and Setting: IPDMA were identified with a comprehensive literature search, subsequently, CMA on similar research questions were traced. Methods for studying subgroups were compared for IPDMA and CMA that were matched with respect to domain, type of treatment, and outcome measure.Results: Of all 171 identified IPDMA and 102 CMA, 80{\%} and 45{\%} presented subgroup analyses, respectively. For 35 IPDMA and 37 {"}matched{"} CMA, subgroup analytic methods could be compared. The number of performed subgroup analyses did not differ between IPDMA and CMA. Both IPDMA and CMA often do not report adequate information on methods of analyses. Interaction tests were often not performed in IPDMA (69{\%}) and individual patient data was often not directly modelled (74{\%}).Conclusion: Many IPDMA performed subgroup analyses, but overall treatment effects were more emphasized than subgroup effects. To study subgroups, a wide variety of analytical methods was used in both IPDMA and CMA. In general, the use and reporting of appropriate methods for subgroup analyses should be promoted. Recommendations for improvement of methods of analyses are provided. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.",
author = "Laura Koopman and {van der Heijden}, {Geert J. M. G.} and Glasziou, {Paul P.} and Grobbee, {Diederick E.} and Rovers, {Maroeska M.}",
year = "2007",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.01.018",
language = "English",
volume = "60",
pages = "1002--1009",
journal = "Journal of Chronic Diseases",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "10",

}

A systematic review of analytical methods used to study subgroups in (individual patient data) meta-analyses. / Koopman, Laura; van der Heijden, Geert J. M. G.; Glasziou, Paul P.; Grobbee, Diederick E.; Rovers, Maroeska M.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 60, No. 10, 10.2007, p. 1002-1009.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A systematic review of analytical methods used to study subgroups in (individual patient data) meta-analyses

AU - Koopman, Laura

AU - van der Heijden, Geert J. M. G.

AU - Glasziou, Paul P.

AU - Grobbee, Diederick E.

AU - Rovers, Maroeska M.

PY - 2007/10

Y1 - 2007/10

N2 - Objectives: To determine whether individual patient data meta-analyses (IPDMA) are used to perform subgroup analyses and to study whether the analytical methods regarding subgroup analyses differ between IPDMA and conventional meta-analyses (CMA).Study Design and Setting: IPDMA were identified with a comprehensive literature search, subsequently, CMA on similar research questions were traced. Methods for studying subgroups were compared for IPDMA and CMA that were matched with respect to domain, type of treatment, and outcome measure.Results: Of all 171 identified IPDMA and 102 CMA, 80% and 45% presented subgroup analyses, respectively. For 35 IPDMA and 37 "matched" CMA, subgroup analytic methods could be compared. The number of performed subgroup analyses did not differ between IPDMA and CMA. Both IPDMA and CMA often do not report adequate information on methods of analyses. Interaction tests were often not performed in IPDMA (69%) and individual patient data was often not directly modelled (74%).Conclusion: Many IPDMA performed subgroup analyses, but overall treatment effects were more emphasized than subgroup effects. To study subgroups, a wide variety of analytical methods was used in both IPDMA and CMA. In general, the use and reporting of appropriate methods for subgroup analyses should be promoted. Recommendations for improvement of methods of analyses are provided. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

AB - Objectives: To determine whether individual patient data meta-analyses (IPDMA) are used to perform subgroup analyses and to study whether the analytical methods regarding subgroup analyses differ between IPDMA and conventional meta-analyses (CMA).Study Design and Setting: IPDMA were identified with a comprehensive literature search, subsequently, CMA on similar research questions were traced. Methods for studying subgroups were compared for IPDMA and CMA that were matched with respect to domain, type of treatment, and outcome measure.Results: Of all 171 identified IPDMA and 102 CMA, 80% and 45% presented subgroup analyses, respectively. For 35 IPDMA and 37 "matched" CMA, subgroup analytic methods could be compared. The number of performed subgroup analyses did not differ between IPDMA and CMA. Both IPDMA and CMA often do not report adequate information on methods of analyses. Interaction tests were often not performed in IPDMA (69%) and individual patient data was often not directly modelled (74%).Conclusion: Many IPDMA performed subgroup analyses, but overall treatment effects were more emphasized than subgroup effects. To study subgroups, a wide variety of analytical methods was used in both IPDMA and CMA. In general, the use and reporting of appropriate methods for subgroup analyses should be promoted. Recommendations for improvement of methods of analyses are provided. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.01.018

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.01.018

M3 - Review article

VL - 60

SP - 1002

EP - 1009

JO - Journal of Chronic Diseases

JF - Journal of Chronic Diseases

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 10

ER -