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

Abstract

AbstractObjectivesThis study aimed to assess the reporting quality and risk of bias of Cochrane individual participant data meta‐analyses (IPD‐MAs).MethodsWe 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.ResultsForty‐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).ConclusionsThe 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.