Value of updating a systematic review in surgery using individual patient data

Kirsty McCormack, Adrian Maxwell Grant, Neil William Scott, EU Hernia Trialists Collaboration

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Previous research has highlighted the advantages of individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses. However, they are resource intensive and take considerable time to complete. The aim of this study was to determine whether the extra investment is justified by greater accuracy or usefulness by means of a case study in surgery.

Methods: An updated review using IPD, where possible, was compared with an earlier version based on aggregate published data to determine whether there were statistically significant changes in estimates of effectiveness for hernia recurrence and persisting pain. Differences related to the type of laparoscopic repair, the type of open repair and methodological quality were also explored.

Results: The results for hernia recurrence changed little. However, the IPD update led to divergent conclusions for persisting pain. The published data implied a statistically significant benefit in favour of open repair, whereas the IPD result implied a statistically significant benefit in favour of laparoscopic repair (P < 0.001). Methodological quality did not account for this difference.

Conclusion: Updating of systematic reviews using IPD can be conducted successfully in surgery. This example led to little change in estimates of effectiveness for hernia recurrence but yielded qualitatively different estimates for persisting pain, an outcome rarely included in the published reports.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)495-499
Number of pages4
JournalBritish Journal of Surgery
Volume91
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2004

Keywords

  • METAANALYSIS
  • DIFFERENCE
  • DISEASE
  • TRIALS

Cite this

Value of updating a systematic review in surgery using individual patient data. / McCormack, Kirsty; Grant, Adrian Maxwell; Scott, Neil William; EU Hernia Trialists Collaboration.

In: British Journal of Surgery, Vol. 91, No. 4, 2004, p. 495-499.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

McCormack, Kirsty ; Grant, Adrian Maxwell ; Scott, Neil William ; EU Hernia Trialists Collaboration. / Value of updating a systematic review in surgery using individual patient data. In: British Journal of Surgery. 2004 ; Vol. 91, No. 4. pp. 495-499.
@article{e4736520323a41aa979dc0bfaf1cae58,
title = "Value of updating a systematic review in surgery using individual patient data",
abstract = "Background: Previous research has highlighted the advantages of individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses. However, they are resource intensive and take considerable time to complete. The aim of this study was to determine whether the extra investment is justified by greater accuracy or usefulness by means of a case study in surgery.Methods: An updated review using IPD, where possible, was compared with an earlier version based on aggregate published data to determine whether there were statistically significant changes in estimates of effectiveness for hernia recurrence and persisting pain. Differences related to the type of laparoscopic repair, the type of open repair and methodological quality were also explored.Results: The results for hernia recurrence changed little. However, the IPD update led to divergent conclusions for persisting pain. The published data implied a statistically significant benefit in favour of open repair, whereas the IPD result implied a statistically significant benefit in favour of laparoscopic repair (P < 0.001). Methodological quality did not account for this difference.Conclusion: Updating of systematic reviews using IPD can be conducted successfully in surgery. This example led to little change in estimates of effectiveness for hernia recurrence but yielded qualitatively different estimates for persisting pain, an outcome rarely included in the published reports.",
keywords = "METAANALYSIS, DIFFERENCE, DISEASE, TRIALS",
author = "Kirsty McCormack and Grant, {Adrian Maxwell} and Scott, {Neil William} and {EU Hernia Trialists Collaboration}",
year = "2004",
doi = "10.1002/bjs.4467",
language = "English",
volume = "91",
pages = "495--499",
journal = "British Journal of Surgery",
issn = "0007-1323",
publisher = "British Journal of Surgery",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Value of updating a systematic review in surgery using individual patient data

AU - McCormack, Kirsty

AU - Grant, Adrian Maxwell

AU - Scott, Neil William

AU - EU Hernia Trialists Collaboration

PY - 2004

Y1 - 2004

N2 - Background: Previous research has highlighted the advantages of individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses. However, they are resource intensive and take considerable time to complete. The aim of this study was to determine whether the extra investment is justified by greater accuracy or usefulness by means of a case study in surgery.Methods: An updated review using IPD, where possible, was compared with an earlier version based on aggregate published data to determine whether there were statistically significant changes in estimates of effectiveness for hernia recurrence and persisting pain. Differences related to the type of laparoscopic repair, the type of open repair and methodological quality were also explored.Results: The results for hernia recurrence changed little. However, the IPD update led to divergent conclusions for persisting pain. The published data implied a statistically significant benefit in favour of open repair, whereas the IPD result implied a statistically significant benefit in favour of laparoscopic repair (P < 0.001). Methodological quality did not account for this difference.Conclusion: Updating of systematic reviews using IPD can be conducted successfully in surgery. This example led to little change in estimates of effectiveness for hernia recurrence but yielded qualitatively different estimates for persisting pain, an outcome rarely included in the published reports.

AB - Background: Previous research has highlighted the advantages of individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses. However, they are resource intensive and take considerable time to complete. The aim of this study was to determine whether the extra investment is justified by greater accuracy or usefulness by means of a case study in surgery.Methods: An updated review using IPD, where possible, was compared with an earlier version based on aggregate published data to determine whether there were statistically significant changes in estimates of effectiveness for hernia recurrence and persisting pain. Differences related to the type of laparoscopic repair, the type of open repair and methodological quality were also explored.Results: The results for hernia recurrence changed little. However, the IPD update led to divergent conclusions for persisting pain. The published data implied a statistically significant benefit in favour of open repair, whereas the IPD result implied a statistically significant benefit in favour of laparoscopic repair (P < 0.001). Methodological quality did not account for this difference.Conclusion: Updating of systematic reviews using IPD can be conducted successfully in surgery. This example led to little change in estimates of effectiveness for hernia recurrence but yielded qualitatively different estimates for persisting pain, an outcome rarely included in the published reports.

KW - METAANALYSIS

KW - DIFFERENCE

KW - DISEASE

KW - TRIALS

U2 - 10.1002/bjs.4467

DO - 10.1002/bjs.4467

M3 - Article

VL - 91

SP - 495

EP - 499

JO - British Journal of Surgery

JF - British Journal of Surgery

SN - 0007-1323

IS - 4

ER -