Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses are usually more time and resource intensive than conventional summary data reviews; but benefit from improved data quality and analysis and are considered to be the 'gold standard’ of systematic reviews. However, members of the Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis Methods Group (IPDMAMG) have highlighted difficulties in obtaining funding for these IPD projects.
Objectives: To collate positive and negative feedback received from funders and provide tips for submitting new funding applications.
Methods: We surveyed all 70 members of the IPDMAMG, asking them to provide details of negative and positive feedback received from both successful and unsuccessful funding applications. Feedback was collated and appraised to identify key themes according to the frequency of particular responses. Based on these identified themes, a list of 'top tips' was compiled.
Results: We received responses relating to 18 IPD funding applications: nine successful, eight failed, and one ongoing at the time of the survey; and comments from funders were wide-ranging. As for any project; the originality, relevance and potential impact are important; the aims and methods need to be clearly stated and the group applying should either have appropriate experience or have formed a collaboration to achieve this. However, perhaps less obvious, is the need to clearly explain clearly why IPD are required, for example if summary data are insufficient to address the question, together with an indication of how likely it is that the IPD will be obtainable. Moreover, as IPD reviews do cost more than standard reviews, ample justification for the resource requested is also vital.
Conclusions: Surveying the members of the IPDMAMG provided a valuable resource for those seeking funding for IPD projects, which we hope will improve the chances of a successful application. This resource is available by contacting IPD@ctu.mrc.ac.uk.
Objectives: To collate positive and negative feedback received from funders and provide tips for submitting new funding applications.
Methods: We surveyed all 70 members of the IPDMAMG, asking them to provide details of negative and positive feedback received from both successful and unsuccessful funding applications. Feedback was collated and appraised to identify key themes according to the frequency of particular responses. Based on these identified themes, a list of 'top tips' was compiled.
Results: We received responses relating to 18 IPD funding applications: nine successful, eight failed, and one ongoing at the time of the survey; and comments from funders were wide-ranging. As for any project; the originality, relevance and potential impact are important; the aims and methods need to be clearly stated and the group applying should either have appropriate experience or have formed a collaboration to achieve this. However, perhaps less obvious, is the need to clearly explain clearly why IPD are required, for example if summary data are insufficient to address the question, together with an indication of how likely it is that the IPD will be obtainable. Moreover, as IPD reviews do cost more than standard reviews, ample justification for the resource requested is also vital.
Conclusions: Surveying the members of the IPDMAMG provided a valuable resource for those seeking funding for IPD projects, which we hope will improve the chances of a successful application. This resource is available by contacting IPD@ctu.mrc.ac.uk.