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.

Background: Previous studies suggest that hemodiafiltration reduces mortality compared to hemodialysis in patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), but controversy surrounding its benefits remain and it is unclear to what extent individual patients benefit from hemodiafiltration. This study aimed to develop and validate a treatment effect prediction model to determine which patients would benefit most from hemodiafiltration compared to hemodialysis in terms of all-cause mortality.

Methods: Individual participant data from four randomized controlled trials comparing hemodiafiltration with hemodialysis on mortality were used to derive a Royston-Parmar model for prediction of absolute treatment effect of hemodiafiltration based on pre-specified patient and disease characteristics. Validation of the model was performed using internal-external cross validation.

Results: The median predicted survival benefit was 44 (Q1-Q3: 44-46) days for every year of treatment with hemodiafiltration compared to hemodialysis. The median survival benefit with hemodiafiltration ranged from 2 to 48 months. Patients who benefited most from hemodiafiltration were younger, less likely to have diabetes or a cardiovascular history and had higher serum creatinine and albumin levels. Internal-external cross validation showed adequate discrimination and calibration.

Conclusion: Although overall mortality is reduced by hemodiafiltration compared to hemodialysis in ESKD patients, the absolute survival benefit can vary greatly between individuals. Our results indicate that the effects of hemodiafiltration on survival can be predicted using a combination of readily available patient and disease characteristics, which could guide shared decision-making.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials is generally considered the most reliable source of estimates of relative treatment effects. However, in the last few years, there has been interest in using non-randomized studies to complement evidence from randomized controlled trials. Several meta-analytical models have been proposed to this end. Such models mainly focussed on estimating the average relative effects of interventions. In real-life clinical practice, when deciding on how to treat a patient, it might be of great interest to have personalized predictions of absolute outcomes under several available treatment options. This paper describes a general framework for developing models that combine individual patient data from randomized controlled trials and non-randomized study when aiming to predict outcomes for a set of competing medical interventions applied in real-world clinical settings. We also discuss methods for measuring the models' performance to identify the optimal model to use in each setting. We focus on the case of continuous outcomes and illustrate our methods using a data set from rheumatoid arthritis, comprising patient-level data from three randomized controlled trials and two registries from Switzerland and Britain.