 |
 |

From Science to PracticeMeta-analyses Using Individual Patient Data Are Needed
Andrew D. Oxman, MD, MSc, FRCPC;
Michael J. Clarke, DPhil;
Lesley A. Stewart, PhD
JAMA. 1995;274(10):845-846.
 |
 |
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings. |
|
 |
 |
In this issue of THE JOURNAL, Jeng et al1 report discrepancies between the results of meta-analyses using aggregate data available from the literature (MAL) and meta-analyses using individual patient data (MAP). This may be seen as further grounds for mistrusting meta-analysis in general2,3 and MAL in particular,4 but before deciding that all meta-analyses are an exercise in "mega-silliness,"5 consider the alternatives.
See also p 830.
The key characteristic of MAPs is the use of individual patient data (IPD). Meta-analyses using aggregate data also can, and frequently do, include unpublished data, so the term IPD meta-analyses is preferable to avoid confusing issues relating to using IPD and issues relating to using unpublished data.
IPD meta-analyses require international cooperation between the individuals and groups who have conducted relevant trials and a considerable amount of time, personnel, and financial resources.6 These global collaborative endeavors have yielded important information
. . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]
Author Affiliations
From the Health Services Research Unit, National Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway (Dr Oxman); the Clinical Trial Service Unit and Imperial Cancer Research Fund Cancer Studies Unit, University of Oxford (England) (Dr Clarke); and the Medical Research Council Cancer Trials Office, Cambridge, England (Dr Stewart).
Footnotes
Corresponding author: Andrew D. Oxman, MD, MSc, Health Services Research Unit, National Institute of Public Health, Geitmyrsveien 75, 0462 Oslo, Norway.
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
|