Comparer des méthodes

	Analyse de survie méta-analytique	Méta-analyse de données individuelles de patients
Domaine	Épidémiologie	Synthèse des données probantes
Famille	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Année d'origine	1990s–2000s (formalized ~1998)	1990s
Auteur d'origine	Parmar, Torri & Stewart (statistical framework); broader IPD tradition developed by the Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group	Cochrane Collaboration, Pioneered by Stewart & Clarke
Type	Quantitative synthesis / meta-analytic method	Method
Source fondatrice	Parmar, M. K. B., Torri, V., & Stewart, L. (1998). Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Statistics in Medicine, 17(24), 2815–2834.	Stewart, L. A., Clarke, M. J., & Cochrane IPD Meta-analysis Methods Group. (2015). Practical methodology of meta-analyses (including IPD) of randomised trials reporting time to event data. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2015(10), MR000027.
Alias	meta-analysis of time-to-event data, pooled survival analysis, IPD survival meta-analysis, aggregate survival meta-analysis	IPD Meta-Analysis, Participant-Level Data Synthesis, One-Stage Meta-Analysis
Apparentées	4	1
Résumé	Meta-analytic survival analysis is a quantitative synthesis method that pools hazard ratios and related time-to-event statistics from multiple independent studies to produce a single, more precise estimate of a treatment or exposure effect on survival outcomes such as overall survival, disease-free survival, or time to relapse. It can operate on aggregate published data or on individual patient data (IPD) contributed directly by study investigators.	Individual patient data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) is a systematic synthesis method where researchers obtain and analyze raw data at the patient level from multiple randomized controlled trials, rather than relying on published summary statistics (aggregate data). Pioneered by the Cochrane Collaboration and formalized by Stewart, Clarke, and Riley, IPD-MA is considered the gold standard for evidence synthesis because it enables consistent outcome definition across trials, robust subgroup analysis, and detection of treatment-covariate interactions. Though time-intensive and resource-demanding, IPD-MA provides the most reliable estimates of intervention effects and is preferred for critical clinical decisions, particularly for identifying which patients benefit most from treatment.