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.

If individual participant data are available from multiple studies or clusters, then a prediction model can be externally validated multiple times. This allows the model's discrimination and calibration performance to be examined across different settings. Random-effects meta-analysis can then be used to quantify overall (average) performance and heterogeneity in performance. This typically assumes a normal distribution of 'true' performance across studies. We conducted a simulation study to examine this normality assumption for various performance measures relating to a logistic regression prediction model. We simulated data across multiple studies with varying degrees of variability in baseline risk or predictor effects and then evaluated the shape of the between-study distribution in the C-statistic, calibration slope, calibration-in-the-large, and E/O statistic, and possible transformations thereof. We found that a normal between-study distribution was usually reasonable for the calibration slope and calibration-in-the-large; however, the distributions of the C-statistic and E/O were often skewed across studies, particularly in settings with large variability in the predictor effects. Normality was vastly improved when using the logit transformation for the C-statistic and the log transformation for E/O, and therefore we recommend these scales to be used for meta-analysis. An illustrated example is given using a random-effects meta-analysis of the performance of QRISK2 across 25 general practices.