Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Systematic reviews with meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) aim to collect, check, and re-analyze individual-level data from all studies addressing a particular research question and are considered a gold standard approach to synthesis. Like most areas of research, reporting could be improved, making it easier for readers to understand, critique and implement findings. Standard PRISMA guidelines are geared towards systematic reviews based on aggregate data and so lack reference to some important aspects of the IPD approach.
Objectives: The PRISMA-IPD extension was developed to provide a framework for full and transparent reporting of IPD review methods.
Methods: Development followed the EQUATOR Network framework guidance and used the standard PRISMA statement as a starting point to draft additional relevant material. A web-based survey informed discussion at an international workshop. The statement was drafted and refined iteratively and agreement on the PRISMA-IPD checklist and flow diagram agreed by consensus.
Results: PRISMA-IPD contains 23 items in which the wording has been modified to take reflect IPD approaches, and three new items on: 1) methods of checking data integrity; and 2i) reporting any important issues identified; and 3) on methods of exploring variation and one new item from re-arrangement. Although developed primarily for reviews of randomized trials, many items will apply in other contexts including for reviews of diagnosis and prognosis.
Conclusions: PRISMA IPD includes a tailored checklist and flow diagram, which we hope will improve reporting. If, as a result of current initiatives aiming to make provision of clinical trial data for research purposes a legal, regulatory or ethical requirement IPD become more readily available, then it is likely that in the future more systematic reviews will access and analyze IPD. This will likely include synthesis of IPD released in controversial areas where transparent, complete and high quality reporting is essential. Authors and peer reviewers are encouraged to use to improve reporting and journal editors to include it in their endorsement of PRISMA.
Objectives: The PRISMA-IPD extension was developed to provide a framework for full and transparent reporting of IPD review methods.
Methods: Development followed the EQUATOR Network framework guidance and used the standard PRISMA statement as a starting point to draft additional relevant material. A web-based survey informed discussion at an international workshop. The statement was drafted and refined iteratively and agreement on the PRISMA-IPD checklist and flow diagram agreed by consensus.
Results: PRISMA-IPD contains 23 items in which the wording has been modified to take reflect IPD approaches, and three new items on: 1) methods of checking data integrity; and 2i) reporting any important issues identified; and 3) on methods of exploring variation and one new item from re-arrangement. Although developed primarily for reviews of randomized trials, many items will apply in other contexts including for reviews of diagnosis and prognosis.
Conclusions: PRISMA IPD includes a tailored checklist and flow diagram, which we hope will improve reporting. If, as a result of current initiatives aiming to make provision of clinical trial data for research purposes a legal, regulatory or ethical requirement IPD become more readily available, then it is likely that in the future more systematic reviews will access and analyze IPD. This will likely include synthesis of IPD released in controversial areas where transparent, complete and high quality reporting is essential. Authors and peer reviewers are encouraged to use to improve reporting and journal editors to include it in their endorsement of PRISMA.