Skip to main content
Download PDF

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

BMC Health Services Research volume 23, Article number: 735 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

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.

Peer Review reports

Background

The harmonisation and analysis of participant-level data and metadata for cross-study analyses, including individual participant data meta-analyses (IPD-MAs), can inform COVID-19 response through improved evaluation of diagnostic, preventative, and treatment measures. IPD-MAs have several analytic benefits over standard aggregate data meta-analyses when considering analyses of longitudinal data and the development and validation of clinical risk prediction tools [1,2,3]. IPD-MAs allow for joint consideration of study and subject-level heterogeneity to separate clinically relevant heterogeneity from heterogeneity related to study design or exposure and outcome ascertainment [1,2,3]. Separating clinically relevant from spurious heterogeneity is central to understanding whether observed differences in the risk of long COVID and COVID-19-related mortality are due to actual differences in exposure or immune response or to study-level differences in selection, ascertainment, or residual confounding.

The implementation and management of IPD-MAs are resource-intensive [1, 2, 4]. Collecting the well-characterised metadata needed to appropriately describe included studies and cleaning and harmonising participant-level data from related studies require a significant investment of time and expertise from the primary studies and the IPD-MA management team [2, 5]. Additional barriers to sharing participant-level health-related data [1], including fears of lost opportunities for publication and legal or ethical considerations, can prevent or slow down data sharing [6,7,8]. IPD-MAs are essential for informing research design, risk communication, and clinical practice for COVID-19. Given the significant resources needed to undertake an IPD-MA, identifying areas of overlap in exposures and outcomes of interest and inclusion criteria can foster cross-IPD-MA coordination to avoid duplication and maximise the utility of existing data.

Our research aim was to identify areas of overlap in research aims and study populations, and to identify included studies across planned, ongoing, or completed COVID-19-related IPD-MAs. We conducted a rapid systematic review to identify and describe synergies across COVID-19 IPD-MAs with a focus on study inclusion and exclusion criteria, study populations and designs, and exposure and outcomes of interest. Our working hypothesis was that there would be several areas of overlap across planned, ongoing, or completed COVID-19-related IPD-MAs. When identified early in the IPD-MA process, we expected that researchers could then exploit these cross-IPD-MA synergies to rapidly and efficiently conduct IPD-MA studies during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search of four databases and protocol repositories, including Ovid Medline, the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, the Open Science Foundation (OSF), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, using a combination of MeSH (where applicable) and text terms (Additional file 1). We ran the searches on 2 June 2021, 29 October 2021, and 7 February 2022. The protocol for this systematic review was developed per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-Protocol statement guidelines [9, 10]. Before implementing the searches, we uploaded the systematic review protocol and search strategies to OSF (10.17605/OSF.IO/93GF2) after unsuccessfully trying to upload the protocol to the PROSPERO Registry of Systematic Reviews, which told our team that the systematic review of IPD-MAs was not a systematic review. This systematic review is reported per the 2020 PRISMA statement (Additional file 2) [11].

Study selection and data extraction

Eligible protocols or published studies were IPD-MAs that planned to include or included participant-level COVID-19-related health data. IPD-MAs that only included social or psychological measures and systematic reviews limited to aggregate measures rather than participant-level data from included studies were excluded. Two independent reviewers determined eligibility at the title abstract and full-text screening stages. One reviewer extracted data into a pre-piloted data extraction Google sheet. Data were subsequently reviewed by a second reviewer. Differences of opinion and discrepancies in data extraction were resolved through consensus.

Analysis

We conducted a narrative synthesis of the results and summarise findings in a series of Sankey diagrams created in RStudio version 1.4.1103. We did not include a formal risk of bias assessment as part of this rapid systematic review, as most IPD-MAs only had a protocol available for review at the time of data extraction.

Patient and public involvement

Patients and the public were not directly involved in this systematic review; we used publicly available data for the analysis.

Results

We reviewed 116 full texts and identified 31 COVID-19-focused health-related IPD-MAs (see Additional file 3 for the PRISMA flow diagram). The majority of IPD-MAs were identified through PROSPERO (n = 21), followed by Ovid Medline (n = 8) and OSF (n = 2) [12, 13]. No IPD-MAs were identified from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The 31 ongoing or completed COVID-19 IPD-MAs are described in Table 1. As shown in the Sankey diagrams in Fig. 1A–D, there were several areas of overlap in included study populations, designs, interventions, and outcomes of interest between ongoing or completed and static or living COVID-19-related IPD-MAs. Figure 1C–D limit inference to the 21 IPD-MAs that requested data from authors, which requires more effort than IPD-MAs of data included in publications.

Table 1 Overview of COVID-19-focused IPD-MAs
Full size table
Fig.1
figure 1

Sankey diagrams showing overlap between ongoing or completed and static or living COVID-19 IPD-MAs. A Shows overlap between the focus, included study designs, and type of IPD-MA for all the ongoing or completed IPD-MAs. B Shows overlap between the included study population, interventions/exposures, and outcomes of all the ongoing or completed IPD-MAs. C Shows overlap between the focus, included study designs, and type of IPD-MA for only those IPD-MAs that requested data from authors. D Shows overlap between the included study population, interventions/exposures, and outcomes of only those that requested data from authors. ACEIs = angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors. ARBs = angiotensin II receptor blockers. BCG = Bacillus Calmette-Guérin. ECMO = extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. GBS = Guillain‐Barré syndrome. MIS-C = multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children. Obs = observational. RCTs = randomised controlled trials. RT-PCR = reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction

Full size image

Study designs

Ten IPD-MAs included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised intervention studies, or longitudinal observational studies; an additional 10 IPD-MAs were limited to RCTs only. Three IPD-MAs included RCTs and longitudinal or cross-sectional observational studies [22, 24, 32]. Two IPD-MAs had case reports and case series [27, 33]. One IPD-MA each was limited to case reports [15], medical records [12], and case series and longitudinal studies [35]. One IPD-MA included any study design [17]; two others included any study design other than case reports [18, 21].

Populations

More than half of the 31 IPD-MAs were conducted with data from hospitalised or intensive care unit (ICU) patients (n = 17). Ten IPD-MAs included data from the general population, and two IPD-MAs were limited to children or adolescents [14, 21]. One IPD-MA was conducted with pregnant women [37] and one with older adults and health care workers [42]. Most IPD-MAs were not limited by geography (n = 28). One IPD-MA was limited to studies in the US and Canada [38], another to the US, Europe, and China [29], and one to China [19].

Treatment or exposure

Sixteen IPD-MAs focused on the evaluation of medical treatments, including antivirals (n = 6) [13, 19, 20, 23, 24, 36], antibodies (n = 4) [14, 15, 34, 40], angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs; n = 2) [16, 38], convalescent plasma (n = 2) [25, 41], COVID-19 vaccines (n = 1) [31], and the Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG)-vaccine (n = 1) [42]. One IPD-MA focused on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) [22]. Two IPD-MAs evaluated any medical or mechanical intervention, including ECMO [28, 29]. One IPD-MA had frailty as the exposure [39].

Outcomes

IPD-MAs shared a number of common outcomes, including rate of mechanical (n = 8) or non-invasive ventilation (n = 2) [20, 39], ECMO rate (n = 2) [26, 39], rate of serious adverse events (SAEs) or adverse events (AEs; n = 7), viral clearance or viral load (n = 4) [13, 23, 24, 28], COVID-19 infection rate (n = 3) [31, 32, 42], rate of hospitalization or rehospitalization (n = 3) [18, 23, 42] or admittance to the ICU (n = 6), time-to-hospital or ICU discharge (n = 12), hospital discharge location (n = 3) [17, 18, 39], time-to-clinical recovery (n = 10), COVID-19 severity score (n = 3) [25, 38, 41], quality of life-related measures (n = 3) [13, 29, 31], and mortality (n = 24). Areas of overlap in mortality measures included IPD-MAs that assessed in-hospital mortality (n = 7) and all-cause mortality (n = 5). One IPD-MA assessed ICU mortality [22], and another pregnancy-related mortality [37]. IPD-MAs that specified time-to-death, included: 14-day mortality (n = 2) [38, 41], 28-day mortality (n = 2) [13, 41], 30-day mortality (n = 2) [12, 38], and 60-day mortality (n = 1) [13]. Individual IPD-MAs focused on the clinical presentation of long COVID-19 [18] and COVID-19 in children [21]; time-to-recovery of smell or taste [30]; incidence of Guillain–Barre syndrome [27]; rate and spectrum of dermatological outcomes in COVID-19 patients [33]; viral load at of sample collection and its effect on the accuracy of RT-PCR [35]; and adverse birth outcomes and vertical transmission in pregnant women with COVID-19 [37].

Types of IPD-MAs

Ten IPD-MAs were limited to published IPD, which means that the group conducting the IPD-MA did not contact authors to request data. Five were living IPD-MAs where datasets and related findings are regularly updated as evidence becomes available [29, 31, 37, 41, 42]. Living IPD-MAs included a real-time IPD-MA [41], a network IPD-MA [31], and an IPD-MA of IPD-MAs [29]. Living IPD-MAs focused on COVID-19 vaccines [31], BCG vaccine [42], any treatment [29], convalescent plasma [41], and issues of interest to perinatal populations [37], Four of the five living IPD-MAs were limited to RCTs [29, 31, 41, 42].

Availability of data from IPD-MAs

Fifteen IPD-MAs were published when we submitted the manuscript for publication. Three published IPD-MAs made their data available through GitHub (n = 1) [24] or the journal supplement (n = 2) [17, 21]. Two published IPD-MAs stated that interested researchers could request the dataset from the study team [29, 35], and five said that data would not be made available [15, 26, 27, 31, 34]. Five others did not include a statement related to data availability [33, 36, 39,40,41]. Three of the living IPD-MAs were published [29, 31, 41], although only one indicated that data could be requested from the study team [29].

Discussion

IPD-MAs are an essential tool for the rapid evidence generation needed to inform clinical practice, making them a vital part of the research response to emerging pathogens [43]. We conducted a rapid systematic review to identify ongoing or completed COVID-19-related IPD-MAs. There were many areas of overlap in the 31 COVID-19-related IPD-MAs, including in study design and population, exposure, and outcomes of interest. In particular, the 14 IPD-MAs that evaluated the same medical exposures (antivirals, antibodies, ACEIs and ARBs, and convalescent plasma) represent a missed opportunity to exploit synergies. Most IPD-MA protocols were registered on PROSPERO, which could flag these areas of overlap when researchers submit their protocol. IPD-MAs require a significant investment of time and expertise, both from the team conducting the IPD-MA and the groups contributing data to the IPD-MA. Rapidly identifying and exploiting shared inclusion criteria can help facilitate evidence generation and avoid unnecessary duplication of effort.

We identified at least 10 IPD-MAs that limited their analysis to data included in published reports. While IPD-MAs that are limited to published IPD have been conducted previously, the volume of the research response to COVID-19 coupled with the push for reproducibility and transparency have likely facilitated the rise in IPD-MAs of data that were included in the study publications. Almost half of the IPD-MAs of published data included case study or case series data (n = 4/10; 40%) [15, 27, 33, 35]. Given that the utility of the IPD-MA is limited by the quality of the studies that contribute data [2], findings from these rapidly produced IPD-MAs should be considered preliminary and updated when more detailed and less selective participant-level datasets become available. This finding is in keeping with a methodological review of published data that compared the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 and non-pandemic research and found a reduction in quality in the former [44].

While we reviewed the protocols for all IPD-MAs, we could only identify the restriction to published IPD for those IPD-MAs that had published their analyses, which suggests a need to clarify inclusion criteria in IPD-MA protocols to specify the intent to limit inference to published IPD. Some of the unpublished studies identified in our review may be misclassified as having the classical approach to conducting an IPD-MA, which includes the challenges associated with requesting the data from the data producers.

Living IPD-MAs are regularly updated as more evidence becomes available, representing substantial investments. There was overlap in study design, exposure, and outcome measurements in several of the five living IPD-MAs and between the living IPD-MAs and static IPD-MAs, which represents an opportunity to share limited resources and expedite findings.

Only a few IPD-MAs of data received from authors had been published when this manuscript was submitted for publication (n = 5/21; 24%), so we could not quantify the overlap in datasets across IPD-MAs that collected datasets from research teams which would be an important measure of cross-IPD-MA redundancy in efforts. Only three of the ten published IPD-MAs had made data available through a repository or the publication of supplementary materials [17, 21, 24], which suggests a continued need to encourage data sharing.

Working collaboratively to harmonise and share data across related IPD-MAs would maximise limited resources and shorten the timeline to deliver results that best inform clinical and public health practice. Testing the same hypotheses, especially with the same study designs or populations, represents a missed opportunity to evaluate novel hypotheses. Our findings support similar calls from a living review of COVID-19-related clinical trials and a scoping review of COVID-19-related data sharing platforms, which urged coordination across initiatives to reduce redundancies [45]. We propose the creation of a task force to identify concrete steps to enable cross-initiative collaboration and ensure that the harmonised participant-level data and study-related metadata correspond to the findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable (FAIR) principles for data resources [46]. These steps could include a cross-platform algorithm that uses natural language processing to alert researchers to similar initiatives during protocol deposition. The pandemic's global scope and rapidly evolving nature underscore the need for more meta-collaborations to bring together data-sharing efforts and cross-national analyses. The coordination of ongoing or planned IPD-MAs is a good starting place.

Conclusions

IPD-MAs are important for informed research and public health response to COVID-19. To identify areas of overlap, we conducted a rapid systematic review of completed or ongoing COVID-19 IPD-MAs. We identified 31 COVID-19-related IPD-MAs, including five living IPD-MAs, and found several areas of overlap in study designs, populations, exposures, and outcomes of interest. This review shows several potential areas of collaboration across related IPD-MAs which can leverage limited resources and expertise by expediting the creation of cross-study participant-level datasets. This, in turn, can fast-track evidence synthesis for the improved diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19.

Availability of data and materials

The research protocol is available at the Open Science Foundation, registration number: 10.17605/OSF.IO/93GF2. A spreadsheet with comprehensive information on all planned or concluded IPD-MAs described in this review is available on Zenodo (10.5281/zenodo.6623480) under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.

Abbreviations

ACEIs:

Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors

AD:

Aggregate data

AEs:

Adverse events

ARBs:

Angiotensin II receptor blockers

ARDS:

Acute respiratory distress syndrome

BCG:

Bacillus Calmette–Guérin

ECMO:

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

EMRs:

Electronic medical records

FAIR:

Findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable

GBS:

Guillain‐Barré syndrome

ICU:

Intensive care unit

IL-6:

Interleukin 6

IPD:

Individual participant data

IPD-MAs:

Individual participant data meta-analyses

IVIG:

Intravenous immunoglobulins

MeSH:

Medical Subject Headings

MIS-C:

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children

Obs:

Observational

OSF:

Open Science Foundation

PRECISE:

Precise Risk Estimation to optimise COVID-19 Care for Infected or Suspected patients in diverse sEttings

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

PROSPERO:

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews

QoL:

Quality of life

RCTs:

Randomised controlled trials

RT-PCR:

Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction

SAEs:

Serious adverse events

SARS-CoV-2:

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus

VAP:

Ventilator-associated pneumonia

References

  1. Tudur Smith C, Marcucci M, Nolan SJ, et al. Individual participant data meta-analyses compared with meta-analyses based on aggregate data. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;9:MR000007.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Riley RD, Lambert PC, Abo-Zaid G. Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting. BMJ. 2010;340: c221.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wilder-Smith A, Wei Y, de Araújo TV, et al. Understanding the relation between Zika virus infection during pregnancy and adverse fetal, infant and child outcomes: a protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis of longitudinal studies of pregnant women and their infants and children. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e026092.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Stewart LA, Tierney JF. To IPD or not to IPD?: Advantages and disadvantages of systematic reviews using individual patient data. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25:76–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tierney JF, Vale C, Riley R, et al. Individual Participant Data (IPD) meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: guidance on their use. PLoS Med. 2015;12:e1001855.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Schwalbe N, Wahl B, Song J, et al. Data sharing and global public health: defining what we mean by data. Front Digit Health. 2020;2:612339.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Jao I, Kombe F, Mwalukore S, et al. Research stakeholders’ views on benefits and challenges for public health research data sharing in Kenya: The importance of trust and social relations. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0135545.

  8. van Panhuis WG, Paul P, Emerson C, et al. A systematic review of barriers to data sharing in public health. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1144.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349:g7647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372: n71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. de Jong VMT, Debray TPA. Clinical prediction models for mortality in COVID-19 patients: an external validation and individual participant data meta-analysis (COVID-PRECISE). OSF. 2021. Available at: https://osf.io/96wgn/. Accessed 9 June 2022.

  13. Speich B, Schönenberger C, Griessbach A, et al. Efficacy and safety of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: Systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized trials. OSF. 2021. Available at: https://osf.io/7a4wf. Accessed 9 June 2022.

  14. Angoulvant F, Levin M, McArdle A, et al. Initial treatment of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) and outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data; The International MIS-C Treatment Collaborative. PROSPERO. 2021. Available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021292162. Accessed 9 June 2022.

  15. Antwi-Amoabeng D, Kanji Z, Ford B, et al. Clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients treated with tocilizumab: An individual patient data systematic review. J Med Virol. 2020;92:2516–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Baral R, Vassiliou V. Individual patient data meta-analysis of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors in COVID-19. PROSPERO. 2020. Available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020208447. Accessed 9 June 2022.

  17. Beyrouti R, Best JG, Chandratheva A, et al. Characteristics of intracerebral haemorrhage associated with COVID-19: a systematic review and pooled analysis of individual patient and aggregate data. J Neurol. 2021;268:3105–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Campbell P, Ali M, Mason H, et al. Predictors of COVID-19 outcomes: an individual participant meta-analysis. PROSPERO. 2020. Available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020224323. Accessed 9 June 2022.

  19. Cao Y, Shan J, Gong Z, et al. Comparative efficacy of treatments for patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. PROSPERO. 2020. Available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020167038. Accessed 9 June 2022.

  20. Cao Y, Shan J, Gong Z, et al. Comparative effectiveness and safety of antiviral agents for patients with COVID-19: Protocol for a systematic review and individual-patient data network meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2020;15: e0241947.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Christophers B, Gallo Marin B, Oliva R, et al. Trends in clinical presentation of children with COVID-19: a systematic review of individual participant data. Pediatr Res. 2022;91:494–501.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dominguez-Rodriguez A, Baez-Ferrer N, Abreu-Gonzalez P, et al. Management of mechanical circulatory support during the COVID-19 pandemic: an individual patient data meta-analysis. PROSPERO. 2020. Available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020203402. Accessed 9 June 2022.

  23. Fontes LE, Riera R, Martimbianco ALC, et al. Chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) – a systematic review of individual participant data. PROSPERO. 2020. Available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020178667. Accessed 9 June 2022.

  24. Gastine S, Pang J, Boshier FAT, et al. Systematic Review and Patient-Level Meta-Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Viral Dynamics to Model Response to Antiviral Therapies. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021;110:321–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Goldfeld KS, Wu D, Tarpey T, et al. Prospective individual patient data meta-analysis: evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19. Stat Med. 2021;40:5131–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Harwood R, Yan H, Da Camara NT, et al. Which children and young people are at higher risk of severe disease and death after hospitalisation with SARS-CoV-2 infection in children and young people: a systematic review and individual patient meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine. 2022;44:101287.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Hasan I, Saif-Ur-Rahman KM, Hayat S, et al. Guillain-Barré syndrome associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2020;25:335–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hong H, Halabi S. Efficacy and safety of therapeutic treatments in patients with COVID-19: a network meta-analysis. PROSPERO. 2020. Available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020182500. Accessed 9 June 2022.

  29. Juul S, Nielsen EE, Feinberg J, et al. Interventions for treatment of COVID-19: Second edition of a living systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project). PLoS One. 2021;16:e0248132.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Tan BKJ, Han R, Zhao JJ, et al. Prognosis & persistence of smell & taste dysfunction in COVID-19: a meta-analysis with parametric cure modelling of recovery curves. PROSPERO. 2021. Available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021283922. Accessed 9 June 2022.

  31. Korang SK, von Rohden E, Veroniki AA, et al. Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review with network meta-analysis including individual patient data (The LIVING VACCINE Project). PLoS ONE. 2022;17: e0260733.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Lant S, Cividini S, Singh B, et al. Neurological associations of COVID-19 (COVID-Neuro): A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. PROSPERO. 2021. Available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020196542. Accessed 9 June 2022.

  33. Lee DS, Mirmirani P, McCleskey PE, et al. Cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19: a systematic review and analysis of individual patient-level data. Dermatol Online J. 2020;26:13030/qt7s34p8rw.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ling RR, Ramanathan K, Tan WQ, et al. Interleukin-6 Receptor Antagonists for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Individual Participant Data from Randomised Controlled Trials. SSRN. 2021. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3844782. Accessed 9 June 2022.

  35. Mallett S, Allen AJ, Graziadio S, et al. At what times during infection is SARS-CoV-2 detectable and no longer detectable using RT-PCR-based tests? A systematic review of individual participant data. BMC Med. 2020;18:346.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Simmons B, Wentzel H, Mobarak S, et al. Sofosbuvir/daclatasvir regimens for the treatment of COVID-19: an individual patient data meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2021;76:286–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Smith E. Protocol for a sequential, prospective meta-analyses (PMA) to rapidly addressing priority perinatal COVID-19 questions. PROSPERO. 2020. Available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020188955. Accessed 9 June 2022.

  38. Victory J, Freilich D, Hanley D, et al. ACEi/ARB medications for hospitalised patients with COVID-19: an individual patient data (IPD)-based pooled analysis. PROSPERO. 2022. Available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021267770. Accessed 9 June 2022.

  39. Subramaniam A, Anstey C, Curtis JR, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of patients with frailty admitted to ICU with coronavirus disease 2019: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Crit Care Explor. 2022;4: e0616.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Tasoudis PT, Arvaniti CK, Adamou AT, et al. Interleukin-6 inhibitors reduce mortality in coronavirus disease-2019: An individual patient data meta-analysis from randomised controlled trials. Eur J Intern Med. 2022;S0953–6205(22):00140–6.

  41. Troxel AB, Petkova E, Goldfeld K, et al. Association of convalescent plasma treatment with clinical status in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5: e2147331.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. van Werkhoven CH, Schure J, Bonten MJM, et al. Anytime Live and Leading Interim* meta-analysis of the impact of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccination in health care workers and elderly during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (ALL-IN-META-BCG-CORONA). PROSPERO. 2021. Available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021213069. Accessed 9 June 2022.

  43. Zika Virus Individual Participant Data Consortium. The Zika virus individual participant data consortium: a global initiative to estimate the effects of exposure to Zika virus during pregnancy on adverse fetal, infant, and child health outcomes. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2020;5:152.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Quinn TJ, Burton JK, Carter B, et al. Following the science? Comparison of methodological and reporting quality of covid-19 and other research from the first wave of the pandemic. BMC Med. 2021;19:46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Nguyen VT, Rivière P, Ripoll P, et al. Research response to coronavirus disease 2019 needed better coordination and collaboration: a living mapping of registered trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;130:107–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Wilkinson M, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg I, et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data. 2016;3: 160018.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Open Access funding was enabled and organized by the Deutche Forschungsgemeinschaft within the funding programme "Open Access Publikationskosten" (Projekt DEAL) as well as by Heidelberg University. This systematic review was conducted as part of the ReCoDID project, funded by the EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement 825746) and the CIHR Institute of Genetics (grant agreement 01886–000) grant to LM. The study's funders had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or report writing. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit this manuscript for publication. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Heidelberger Institut Für Global Health, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130/3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

    Lauren Maxwell, Priya Shreedhar & Shaila Akter

  2. Centre for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, 3755 Cote Ste Catherine Road, Montreal, QC, H3T 1E2, Canada

    Brooke Levis

  3. Institute of Tropical Medicine and Public Health, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Südring 2-3, 13353, Berlin, Germany

    Sayali Arvind Chavan

  4. Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, School of Population and Global Health, McGill University, 2001 McGill College Avenue, Montréal, H3A 1G1, Canada

    Mabel Carabali

  5. Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, Universite de Montreal, 7101 Parc Avenue, Montreal, H3N 1X9, Canada

    Mabel Carabali

Authors
  1. Lauren Maxwell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Priya Shreedhar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brooke Levis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sayali Arvind Chavan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shaila Akter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mabel Carabali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LM, BL, and MC conceived of and designed the study. LM wrote the research protocol and developed the search strategy. LM, SA, and SC conducted the title abstract and full-text screening. LM, MC, PS, SA, and SC extracted and interpreted the data. LM wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors provided critical reviews of the manuscript. All authors had full access to all study data, take responsibility for data integrity and reliability of the analysis, and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lauren Maxwell.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Database-specific search strategies.

Additional file 2.

PRISMA 2020 Checklist.

Additional file 3.

PRISMA Flow Diagram.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maxwell, L., Shreedhar, P., Levis, B. et al. Overlapping research efforts in a global pandemic: a rapid systematic review of COVID-19-related individual participant data meta-analyses. BMC Health Serv Res 23, 735 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09726-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09726-8

Keywords

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us