Trials number, funding support, and intervention type associated with IPDMA data retrieval: a cross-sectional study

Heterogeneity and Utility of Pharmaceutical Company Sharing of Individual-Participant Data Packages

Importance

The pharmaceutical industry has made substantial investments in developing processes for sharing individual-participant data (IPD) from clinical trials. However, the utility and completeness of shared IPD and supporting documents must be evaluated to ensure the potential for scientific advancements from the data sharing ecosystem can be realized.

Objective

To assess the utility and completeness of IPD and supporting documents provided from industry-sponsored clinical trials.

Design, Setting, and Participants

From February 9, 2022, to February 9, 2023, 91 of 203 clinical trials supporting US Food and Drug Administration registrations of anticancer medicines for the treatment of solid tumors from the past decade were confirmed as eligible for IPD request. This quality improvement study performed a retrospective audit of the utility and completeness of the IPD and supporting documents provided from the 91 clinical trials for a planned meta-analysis.

Exposures

Request for IPD from 91 clinical oncology trials indicated as eligible for the request.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The utility and completeness of the IPD and supporting documents provided.

Results

The IPD packages were obtained from 70 of 91 requested clinical trials (77%). The median time to data provision was 123 (range, 117-352) days. Redactions were observed in 18 of the acquired IPD packages (26%) for outcome data, 11 (16%) for assessment variables, and 19 (27%) for adjustment data. Additionally, 20 IPD packages (29%) lacked a clinical study report, 4 (6%) had incomplete or missing data dictionaries, and 20 (29%) were missing anonymization or redaction description files. Access to IPD from 21 eligible trials (23%) was not granted.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this quality improvement study, there was substantial variability within the provided IPD packages regarding the completeness of key data variables and supporting documents. To improve the data sharing ecosystem, key areas for enhancement include (1) ensuring that clinical trials are eligible for IPD sharing, (2) making eligible IPD transparently accessible, and (3) ensuring that IPD packages meet a standard of utility and completeness.

Reporting quality and risk of bias of Cochrane individual participant data meta-analyses: A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the reporting quality and risk of bias of Cochrane individual participant data meta-analyses (IPD-MAs).

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library and identified the Cochrane IPD-MAs. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of individual participant data (PRISMA-IPD) assessed the reporting quality of included Cochrane IPD- MAs, and the Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool was used to assess the risk of bias. We performed stratified and correlation analyses to explore factors affecting the quality.

RESULTS

Forty-six Cochrane IPD-MAs were included in our study. Twenty-six Cochrane IPD-MAs (56.5%) had statistical or epidemiological authors involved, and 31 (67.4%) contained only IPD data. Thirty-five studies (76.1%) did not report whether they used 1-stage or 2-stage methods, and forty (87.0%) did not report the statistical techniques used for missing participant data. We found that the entire compliance reported PRISMA-IPD items of Cochrane IPD-MAs published after 2015 (n = 18; Mean ± SD: 26.61 ± 2.75) was higher than those studies published in 2015 and before (n = 28; Mean ± SD: 22.61 ± 4.73), the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.002). A strong positive correlation was found between the fully reported PRISMA-IPD items and fully accordance ROBIS items (Spearman's: ρ = 0.653, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of Cochrane IPD-MAs is not high, especially in the reporting of statistical methods. There was room for further improvement in IPD retrieval, IPD integrity and statistical analyses.

Retrieval barriers in individual participant data reviews with network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Individual participant data (IPD) from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be used in network meta-analysis (NMA) to underpin patient care and are the best analyses to support the development of guidelines about the use of healthcare interventions for a specific condition. However, barriers to IPD retrieval pose a major threat. The aim of this study was to present barriers we encountered during retrieval of IPD from RCTs in two published systematic reviews with IPD-NMA.

METHODS

We evaluated retrieval of IPD from RCTs for IPD-NMA in Alzheimer's dementia and type 1 diabetes. We requested IPD from authors, industry sponsors and data repositories, and recorded IPD retrieval, reasons for IPD unavailability, and retrieval challenges.

RESULTS

In total, we identified 108 RCTs: 78 industry sponsored, 11 publicly sponsored and 19 with no funding information. After failing to obtain IPD from any trial authors, we requested it from industry sponsors. Seven of the 17 industry sponsors shared IPD for 12 950 participants (59%) through proprietary-specific data sharing platforms from 26 RCTs (33%). We found that lack of RCT identifiers (eg, National Clinical Trial number) and unclear data ownership were major challenges in IPD retrieval. Incomplete information in retrieved datasets was another important problem that led to exclusion of RCTs from the NMA. There were also practical challenges in obtaining IPD from or analysing it within platforms, and additional costs were incurred in accessing IPD this way.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no clear evidence of retrieval bias (where IPD availability was linked to trial findings) in either IPD-NMA, but because retrieval bias could impact NMA findings, subsequent decision-making and guideline development, this should be considered when assessing risk of bias in IPD syntheses.

Many researchers were not compliant with their published data sharing statement: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to analyze researchers' compliance with their data availability statement (DAS) from manuscripts published in open-access journals with the mandatory DAS.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We analyzed all articles from 333 open-access journals published during January 2019 by BioMed Central. We categorized types of the DAS. We surveyed corresponding authors who wrote in the DAS that they would share the data. Consent to participate in the study was sought for all included manuscripts. After accessing raw data sets, we checked whether data were available in a way that enabled reanalysis.

RESULTS

Of 3556 analyzed articles, 3416 contained the DAS. The most frequent DAS category (42%) indicated that the data sets are available on reasonable request. Among 1792 manuscripts in which the DAS indicated that authors are willing to share their data, 1669 (93%) authors either did not respond or declined to share their data with us. Among 254 (14%) of 1792 authors who responded to our query for data sharing, only 123 (6.8%) provided the requested data.

CONCLUSION

Even when authors indicate in their manuscript that they will share data upon request, the compliance rate is the same as for authors who do not provide the DAS, suggesting that the DAS may not be sufficient to ensure data sharing.

Progress and challenges of network meta-analysis

In the past years, network meta-analysis (NMA) has been widely used among clinicians, guideline makers, and health technology assessment agencies and has played an important role in clinical decision-making and guideline development. To inform further development of NMAs, we conducted a bibliometric analysis to assess the current status of published NMA methodological studies, summarized the methodological progress of seven types of NMAs, and discussed the current challenges of NMAs.

The methodological quality of individual participant data meta-analysis on intervention effects: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess the methodological quality of individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis and to identify areas for improvement.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Systematic reviews with IPD meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials on intervention effects published in English.

RESULTS

323 IPD meta-analyses covering 21 clinical areas and published between 1991 and 2019 were included: 270 (84%) were non-Cochrane reviews and 269 (84%) were published in journals with a high impact factor (top quarter). The IPD meta-analyses showed low compliance in using a satisfactory technique to assess the risk of bias of the included randomised controlled trials (43%, 95% confidence interval 38% to 48%), accounting for risk of bias when interpreting results (40%, 34% to 45%), providing a list of excluded studies with justifications (32%, 27% to 37%), establishing an a priori protocol (31%, 26% to 36%), prespecifying methods for assessing both the overall effects (44%, 39% to 50%) and the participant-intervention interactions (31%, 26% to 36%), assessing and considering the potential of publication bias (31%, 26% to 36%), and conducting a comprehensive literature search (19%, 15% to 23%). Up to 126 (39%) IPD meta-analyses failed to obtain IPD from 90% or more of eligible participants or trials, among which only 60 (48%) provided reasons and 21 (17%) undertook certain strategies to account for the unavailable IPD.

CONCLUSIONS

The methodological quality of IPD meta-analyses is unsatisfactory. Future IPD meta-analyses need to establish an a priori protocol with prespecified data syntheses plan, comprehensively search the literature, critically appraise included randomised controlled trials with appropriate technique, account for risk of bias during data analyses and interpretation, and account for unavailable IPD.