A common problem in the analysis of multiple data sources, including individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA), is the misclassification of binary variables. Misclassification may lead to biased estimators of model parameters, even when the misclassification is entirely random. We aimed to develop statistical methods that facilitate unbiased estimation of adjusted and unadjusted exposure-outcome associations and between-study heterogeneity in IPD-MA, where the extent and nature of exposure misclassification may vary across studies.

We present Bayesian methods that allow misclassification of binary exposure variables to depend on study- and participant-level characteristics. In an example of the differential diagnosis of dengue using two variables, where the gold standard measurement for the exposure variable was unavailable for some studies which only measured a surrogate prone to misclassification, our methods yielded more accurate estimates than analyses naive with regard to misclassification or based on gold standard measurements alone. In a simulation study, the evaluated misclassification model yielded valid estimates of the exposure-outcome association, and was more accurate than analyses restricted to gold standard measurements.

Our proposed framework can appropriately account for the presence of binary exposure misclassification in IPD-MA. It requires that some studies supply IPD for the surrogate and gold standard exposure, and allows misclassification to follow a random effects distribution across studies conditional on observed covariates (and outcome). The proposed methods are most beneficial when few large studies that measured the gold standard are available, and when misclassification is frequent.

Precision medicine research often searches for treatment-covariate interactions, which refers to when a treatment effect (eg, measured as a mean difference, odds ratio, hazard ratio) changes across values of a participant-level covariate (eg, age, gender, biomarker). Single trials do not usually have sufficient power to detect genuine treatment-covariate interactions, which motivate the sharing of individual participant data (IPD) from multiple trials for meta-analysis. Here, we provide statistical recommendations for conducting and planning an IPD meta-analysis of randomized trials to examine treatment-covariate interactions. For conduct, two-stage and one-stage statistical models are described, and we recommend: (i) interactions should be estimated directly, and not by calculating differences in meta-analysis results for subgroups; (ii) interaction estimates should be based solely on within-study information; (iii) continuous covariates and outcomes should be analyzed on their continuous scale; (iv) nonlinear relationships should be examined for continuous covariates, using a multivariate meta-analysis of the trend (eg, using restricted cubic spline functions); and (v) translation of interactions into clinical practice is nontrivial, requiring individualized treatment effect prediction. For planning, we describe first why the decision to initiate an IPD meta-analysis project should not be based on between-study heterogeneity in the overall treatment effect; and second, how to calculate the power of a potential IPD meta-analysis project in advance of IPD collection, conditional on characteristics (eg, number of participants, standard deviation of covariates) of the trials (potentially) promising their IPD. Real IPD meta-analysis projects are used for illustration throughout.

Many randomized trials evaluate an intervention effect on time-to-event outcomes. Individual participant data (IPD) from such trials can be obtained and combined in a so-called IPD meta-analysis (IPD-MA), to summarize the overall intervention effect. We performed a narrative literature review to provide an overview of methods for conducting an IPD-MA of randomized intervention studies with a time-to-event outcome. We focused on identifying good methodological practice for modeling frailty of trial participants across trials, modeling heterogeneity of intervention effects, choosing appropriate association measures, dealing with (trial differences in) censoring and follow-up times, and addressing time-varying intervention effects and effect modification (interactions).

We discuss how to achieve this using parametric and semi-parametric methods, and describe how to implement these in a one-stage or two-stage IPD-MA framework. We recommend exploring heterogeneity of the effect(s) through interaction and non-linear effects. Random effects should be applied to account for residual heterogeneity of the intervention effect. We provide further recommendations, many of which specific to IPD-MA of time-to-event data from randomized trials examining an intervention effect.

We illustrate several key methods in a real IPD-MA, where IPD of 1225 participants from 5 randomized clinical trials were combined to compare the effects of Carbamazepine and Valproate on the incidence of epileptic seizures.

Background: Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) is considered the gold standard for investigating subgroup effects. Frequently used regression-based approaches to detect subgroups in IPD-MA are: meta-regression, per-subgroup meta-analysis (PS-MA), meta-analysis of interaction terms (MA-IT), naive one-stage IPD-MA (ignoring potential study-level confounding), and centred one-stage IPD-MA (accounting for potential study-level confounding). Clear guidance on the analyses is lacking and clinical researchers may use approaches with suboptimal efficiency to investigate subgroup effects in an IPD setting. Therefore, our aim is to overview and compare the aforementioned methods, and provide recommendations over which should be preferred.

Methods: We conducted a simulation study where we generated IPD of randomised trials and varied the magnitude of subgroup effect (0, 25, 50%; relative reduction), between-study treatment effect heterogeneity (none, medium, large), ecological bias (none, quantitative, qualitative), sample size (50,100,200), and number of trials (5,10) for binary, continuous and time-to-event outcomes. For each scenario, we assessed the power, false positive rate (FPR) and bias of aforementioned five approaches.

Results: Naive and centred IPD-MA yielded the highest power, whilst preserving acceptable FPR around the nominal 5% in all scenarios. Centred IPD-MA showed slightly less biased estimates than naïve IPD-MA. Similar results were obtained for MA-IT, except when analysing binary outcomes (where it yielded less power and FPR <5%). PS-MA showed similar power as MA-IT in non-heterogeneous scenarios, but power collapsed as heterogeneity increased, and decreased even more in the presence of ecological bias. PS-MA suffered from too high FPRs in non-heterogeneous settings and showed biased estimates in all scenarios. Meta-regression showed poor power (<20%) in all scenarios and completely biased results in settings with qualitative ecological bias.

Conclusions: Our results indicate that subgroup detection in IPD-MA requires careful modelling. Naive and centred IPD-MA performed equally well, but due to less bias of the estimates in the presence of ecological bias, we recommend the latter.

Over the past few years, evidence synthesis has become essential to investigate and improve the generalizability of medical research findings. This strategy often involves a meta-analysis to formally summarize quantities of interest, such as relative treatment effect estimates. The use of meta-analysis methods is, however, less straightforward in prognosis research because substantial variation exists in research objectives, analysis methods and the level of reported evidence.

We present a gentle overview of statistical methods that can be used to summarize data of prognostic factor and prognostic model studies. We discuss how aggregate data, individual participant data, or a combination thereof can be combined through meta-analysis methods. Recent examples are provided throughout to illustrate the various methods.