How to plan and manage an individual participant data meta-analysis. An illustrative toolkit

Individual participant data meta-analyses (IPD-MAs) have several benefits over standard aggregate data meta-analyses, including the consideration of additional participants, follow-up time, and the joint consideration of study- and participant-level heterogeneity for improved diagnostic and prognostic model development and evaluation. However, IPD-MAs are resource-intensive and require careful budgeting of time from data contributing groups, a dedicated management team, diversity of expertise, clearly documented data sharing and authorship agreements, and consistent and clear communication. We present a toolkit to facilitate the implementation and management of IPD-MAs, from study recruitment to retrospective harmonization. The toolkit was developed and refined over our work on multiple multinational IPD-MA projects over the last 13 years. The toolkit's budget and email templates, agreements, project management spreadsheets, and standard operating procedures are meant to facilitate routine IPD-MA tasks to expedite implementing and managing future IPD-MA projects.

FAIR, ethical, and coordinated data sharing for COVID-19 response: a scoping review and cross-sectional survey of COVID-19 data sharing platforms and registries

Data sharing is central to the rapid translation of research into advances in clinical medicine and public health practice. In the context of COVID-19, there has been a rush to share data marked by an explosion of population-specific and discipline-specific resources for collecting, curating, and disseminating participant-level data. We conducted a scoping review and cross-sectional survey to identify and describe COVID-19-related platforms and registries that harmonise and share participant-level clinical, omics (eg, genomic and metabolomic data), imaging data, and metadata. We assess how these initiatives map to the best practices for the ethical and equitable management of data and the findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) principles for data resources. We review gaps and redundancies in COVID-19 data-sharing efforts and provide recommendations to build on existing synergies that align with frameworks for effective and equitable data reuse. We identified 44 COVID-19-related registries and 20 platforms from the scoping review. Data-sharing resources were concentrated in high-income countries and siloed by comorbidity, body system, and data type. Resources for harmonising and sharing clinical data were less likely to implement FAIR principles than those sharing omics or imaging data. Our findings are that more data sharing does not equate to better data sharing, and the semantic and technical interoperability of platforms and registries harmonising and sharing COVID-19-related participant-level data needs to improve to facilitate the global collaboration required to address the COVID-19 crisis.

Overlapping research efforts in a global pandemic: a rapid systematic review of COVID-19-related individual participant data meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Individual participant data meta-analyses (IPD-MAs), which involve harmonising and analysing participant-level data from related studies, provide several advantages over aggregate data meta-analyses, which pool study-level findings. IPD-MAs are especially important for building and evaluating diagnostic and prognostic models, making them an important tool for informing the research and public health responses to COVID-19.

METHODS

We conducted a rapid systematic review of protocols and publications from planned, ongoing, or completed COVID-19-related IPD-MAs to identify areas of overlap and maximise data request and harmonisation efforts. We searched four databases using a combination of text and MeSH terms. Two independent reviewers determined eligibility at the title-abstract and full-text stages. Data were extracted by one reviewer into a pretested data extraction form and subsequently reviewed by a second reviewer. Data were analysed using a narrative synthesis approach. A formal risk of bias assessment was not conducted.

RESULTS

We identified 31 COVID-19-related IPD-MAs, including five living IPD-MAs and ten IPD-MAs that limited their inference to published data (e.g., case reports). We found overlap in study designs, populations, exposures, and outcomes of interest. For example, 26 IPD-MAs included RCTs; 17 IPD-MAs were limited to hospitalised patients. Sixteen IPD-MAs focused on evaluating medical treatments, including six IPD-MAs for antivirals, four on antibodies, and two that evaluated convalescent plasma.

CONCLUSIONS

Collaboration across related IPD-MAs can leverage limited resources and expertise by expediting the creation of cross-study participant-level data datasets, which can, in turn, fast-track evidence synthesis for the improved diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

10.17605/OSF.IO/93GF2.

Heterogeneity of Zika virus exposure and outcome ascertainment across cohorts of pregnant women, their infants and their children: a metadata survey

OBJECTIVES

To support the Zika virus (ZIKV) Individual Participant Data (IPD) Consortium's efforts to harmonise and analyse IPD from ZIKV-related prospective cohort studies and surveillance-based studies of pregnant women and their infants and children; we developed and disseminated a metadata survey among ZIKV-IPD Meta-Analysis (MA) study participants to identify and provide a comprehensive overview of study-level heterogeneity in exposure, outcome and covariate ascertainment and definitions.

SETTING

Cohort and surveillance studies that measured ZIKV infection during pregnancy or at birth and measured fetal, infant, or child outcomes were identified through a systematic search and consultations with ZIKV researchers and Ministries of Health from 20 countries or territories.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifty-four cohort or active surveillance studies shared deidentified data for the IPD-MA and completed the metadata survey, representing 33 061 women (11 020 with ZIKV) and 18 281 children.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Study-level heterogeneity in exposure, outcome and covariate ascertainment and definitions.

RESULTS

Median study sample size was 268 (IQR=100, 698). Inclusion criteria, follow-up procedures and exposure and outcome ascertainment were highly heterogenous, differing meaningfully across regions and multisite studies. Enrolment duration and follow-up for children after birth varied before and after the declaration of the Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) and according to the type of funding received.

CONCLUSION

This work highlights the logistic and statistical challenges that must be addressed to account for the multiple sources of within-study and between-study heterogeneity when conducting IPD-MAs of data collected in the research response to emergent pathogens like ZIKV.

Health interventions for migrants and refugees in host Southeast Asian countries: a systematic review

Background

Understanding the different types of health interventions that have been conducted for migrants and refugees is crucial for the improvement and implementation of future health interventions for these populations. This systematic review aimed to identify and to look at the scope and outcomes of health interventions focused on migrants and refugees in the main host counties in Southeast Asia which are Thailand, Singapore, and Malaysia.

Methods

This study was conducted in line with the PRISMA guidelines and its protocol has been submitted to PROSPERO. The following databases were searched until June 2021: PubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. Studies were excluded if: 1) they were conducted outside Thailand, Singapore, and Malaysia; 2) had only had qualitative results; 3) were non-peer reviewed; 4) not written in English.

Results

The search yielded 8,266 studies, out of which 33 were included in the review. The majority of the studies (79%) were conducted in Thailand of which most were focused on migrants or refugees from Myanmar (85%). Besides two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of mental health interventions, most Thai studies were observational (81%) and focused on infectious disease-related interventions (33%) or the evaluation of health-related programs (29%). Six studies were conducted in Malaysia (18%) of which 4 assessed mental health interventions in refugees. Three of these studies were RCTs, whereas 1 was an observational study. Only 1 study was situated in Singapore and was an RCT evaluating treatments for COVID-19 in migrant workers. Even in studies with similar interventions, outcomes were too diverse to conduct a meta-analysis.

Conclusions

The low number of studies highlights the gap in literature on health interventions for migrants and refugees, especially in Malaysia and Singapore. More rigorous and cohesive intervention-related research needs to be conducted in Southeast Asia.

Key messages

• More intervention-related research for migrant and refugee populations in the main Southeast Asian host countries is needed.

• Interventions for migrant and refugee populations in host countries in Southeast Asia often do not follow the gold standard RCT study design, limiting the knowledge on their effectiveness.