Aggregate data meta-analyses may be preferable to individual participant data meta-analyses for community deliverable interventions
Background: Systematic reviews with meta-analyses are increasingly used to make decisions regarding the effects of community-deliverable interventions on selected outcomes, with individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses considered to be more valid than aggregate data (AD) meta-analyses. However, despite the increasing prevalence of systematic reviews with meta-analyses addressing community-deliverable exercise in adults with arthritis and other rheumatic disease (AORD) and the potential for IPD meta-analysis to yield more valid results than AD meta-analysis, no study has examined the feasibility of obtaining IPD for a study in this area. The purpose of this study was to fill that gap. Methods: Based on a meta-analysis of 29 studies addressing the effects community-deliverable exercise on depressive symptoms in adults with AORD, the percentage of studies in which useable IPD could be retrieved was calculated. In addition, logistic regression was used to examine the association between the retrieval of IPD with year of publication and country in which the study was conducted as potential predictors. A two-tailed alpha value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Eight of 29 authors (27.6%, 95% CI = 11.3% to 43.8%) provided useable IPD. Neither year of publication nor country was significantly associated with the obtainment of IPD (p > 0.05 for both). Conclusions: An AD meta-analysis may be preferable to an IPD meta-analysis when examining the effects of community-deliverable exercise on selected outcomes in adults with AORD. However, further research is warranted before any definitive recommendations can be made.
Public health or related research
Describe at least one potential disadvantage of conducting an individual participant data meta-analysis for community-deliverable interventions.
Keyword(s): Physical Activity, Methodology
Presenting author's disclosure statement:
Qualified on the content I am responsible for because: I am qualified to be an abstract author on the content I am responsible for because I have more than 20 years of successful experience in the design and conduct of meta-analyses. To date, this includes approximately 20 years of external funding as Principal Investigator to support this work as well as 89 peer-reviewed publications, the vast majority (>80%) as lead author.
Any relevant financial relationships? No
I agree to comply with the American Public Health Association Conflict of Interest and Commercial Support Guidelines,
and to disclose to the participants any off-label or experimental uses of a commercial product or service discussed
in my presentation.