
doi: 10.1002/sim.9307
pmid: 35040178
Often both aggregate data (AD) studies and individual participant data (IPD) studies are available for specific treatments. Combining these two sources of data could improve the overall meta‐analytic estimates of treatment effects. Moreover, often for some studies with AD, the associated IPD maybe available, albeit at some extra effort or cost to the analyst. We propose a method for combining treatment effects across trials when the response is from the exponential family of distribution and hence a generalized linear model structure can be used. We consider the case when treatment effects are fixed and common across studies. Using the proposed combination method, we study the relative efficiency of analyzing all IPD studies vs combining various percentages of AD and IPD studies. For many different models, design constraints under which the AD estimators are the IPD estimators, and hence fully efficient, are known. For such models, we advocate a selection procedure that chooses AD studies over IPD studies in a manner that force least departure from design constraints and hence ensures an efficient combined AD and IPD estimator.
design, individual participant data, Applications of statistics to biology and medical sciences; meta analysis, meta-analysis, random effect, treatment-control difference, Meta-Analysis as Topic, efficiency, Research Design, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Linear Models, Humans
design, individual participant data, Applications of statistics to biology and medical sciences; meta analysis, meta-analysis, random effect, treatment-control difference, Meta-Analysis as Topic, efficiency, Research Design, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Linear Models, Humans
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 2 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
