Quantitative Synthesis of Personalized Trials Studies: Meta-Analysis of Aggregated Data Versus Individual Patient Data.

Harvard data science review Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-09-08 DOI:10.1162/99608f92.3574f1dc
Mariola Moeyaert, Joelle Fingerhut
{"title":"Quantitative Synthesis of Personalized Trials Studies: Meta-Analysis of Aggregated Data Versus Individual Patient Data.","authors":"Mariola Moeyaert, Joelle Fingerhut","doi":"10.1162/99608f92.3574f1dc","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We have entered an era in which scientific knowledge and evidence increasingly inform research practice and policy. As there is an exponential increase in the use of personalized trials, there is a remarkable growing interest in the quantitative synthesis of personalized trials. One technique that is developed and can be applied for this purpose is meta-analysis. Meta-analysis involves the quantitative integration of effect sizes from several personalized trials. In this study, aggregated data (AD) and individual patient data (IPD) methods for meta-analysis of personalized trials are discussed, together with an empirical demonstration using a subset of a real meta-analytic data set. For the empirical demonstration, 26 personalized trials received usual care and yoga intervention in a randomized sequence. Results show a general consensus between the AD and IPD approach in terms of conclusions-that both usual care and the yoga intervention are effective in reducing pain. However, the IPD approach provides more information about the intervention effectiveness and intervention heterogeneity. IPD is a more flexible modeling approach, allowing for a variety of modeling options.</p>","PeriodicalId":73195,"journal":{"name":"Harvard data science review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10673630/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Harvard data science review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.3574f1dc","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

We have entered an era in which scientific knowledge and evidence increasingly inform research practice and policy. As there is an exponential increase in the use of personalized trials, there is a remarkable growing interest in the quantitative synthesis of personalized trials. One technique that is developed and can be applied for this purpose is meta-analysis. Meta-analysis involves the quantitative integration of effect sizes from several personalized trials. In this study, aggregated data (AD) and individual patient data (IPD) methods for meta-analysis of personalized trials are discussed, together with an empirical demonstration using a subset of a real meta-analytic data set. For the empirical demonstration, 26 personalized trials received usual care and yoga intervention in a randomized sequence. Results show a general consensus between the AD and IPD approach in terms of conclusions-that both usual care and the yoga intervention are effective in reducing pain. However, the IPD approach provides more information about the intervention effectiveness and intervention heterogeneity. IPD is a more flexible modeling approach, allowing for a variety of modeling options.

个性化试验研究的定量综合:汇总数据与个体患者数据的荟萃分析
我们已经进入了一个科学知识和证据日益为研究实践和政策提供信息的时代。由于个性化试验的使用呈指数增长,对个性化试验的定量综合的兴趣显著增长。为此目的而开发并应用的一种技术是元分析。荟萃分析包括对几个个性化试验的效应量进行定量整合。在本研究中,讨论了用于个性化试验的荟萃分析的汇总数据(AD)和个体患者数据(IPD)方法,并使用真实荟萃分析数据集的子集进行了实证论证。为了进行实证验证,26个个性化试验按随机顺序接受常规护理和瑜伽干预。结果显示,AD和IPD方法在结论方面达成了普遍共识,即常规护理和瑜伽干预都能有效减轻疼痛。然而,IPD方法提供了更多关于干预有效性和干预异质性的信息。IPD是一种更灵活的建模方法,支持多种建模选项。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信