Skip to main content

Table 2 IPD identification process of included IPD-NMAs

From: Statistical analyses and quality of individual participant data network meta-analyses were suboptimal: a cross-sectional study

Items Frequency Proportion (%)
Methods used to identify IPD eligible studies (n = 21)
 Collaborative groupa 12 57.1
 Systematic review and contacting authors 7 33.3
 Other methodsb 2 9.5
Did the authors obtain IPD from all studies or just a subset? (n = 21)
 All studies 7 33.3
 Not reported 14 66.7
IPD-NMAs that identified IPD through systematic reviews (n = 7)
 Proportion of contacted authors provided IPD
  46.8% 1 14.3
  70.0% 1 14.3
  80.0% 1 14.3
  Not reported 4 57.1
 Whether a literature search was conducted? (yes) 7 100.0
 Number of databases searched   
  2 to 5 3 42.9
  6 to 9 3 42.9
  14 1 14.3
 Name of database
  PubMed/MEDLINE 6 85.7
  Cochrane Library 6 85.7
ClinicalTrials.gov 6 85.7
  EMBASE 4 57.1
  Web of Science 2 28.6
  ICRTP 2 28.6
 Reported the year of retrieval of databases 6 85.7
 Presented search strategy 3 42.9
  Online supplement 1 14.3
  Manuscript 1 14.3
  Previous published study 1 14.3
  1. IPD individual participant data, IPD-NMAs individual participant data network meta-analyses, ICRTP World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform
  2. aIPD-NMAs project team included authors of IPD studies
  3. bOther methods mean obtaining IPD from the Yale Open Data Access Project and a previous meta-analysis