Salīdzināt metodes
Apskatiet izvēlētās metodes blakus; rindas, kas atšķiras, ir izceltas.
| Meta-analītiska III fāzes klīniskā izpēte× | Individuālu Pacientu Datu Meta-analīze× | |
|---|---|---|
| Nozare≠ | Epidemioloģija | Pierādījumu sintēze |
| Saime | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Izcelsmes gads≠ | 1976 (meta-analysis); systematic application to Phase III RCTs from 1990s onward | 1990s |
| Autors≠ | Glass, G. V. (meta-analysis formalized); applied to Phase III trials via Cochrane Collaboration (Chalmers, Altman, Higgins) | Cochrane Collaboration, Pioneered by Stewart & Clarke |
| Tips≠ | Systematic quantitative evidence synthesis | Method |
| Pirmavots≠ | Whitehead, A. (2002). Meta-Analysis of Controlled Clinical Trials. Wiley. ISBN: 978-0471983705 | 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. link ↗ |
| Citi nosaukumi≠ | Phase III meta-analysis, pooled Phase III analysis, systematic review of Phase III RCTs, confirmatory meta-analysis | IPD Meta-Analysis, Participant-Level Data Synthesis, One-Stage Meta-Analysis |
| Saistītās≠ | 3 | 1 |
| Kopsavilkums≠ | A meta-analytic Phase III clinical trial is a systematic, quantitative synthesis of multiple Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the same intervention. By pooling confirmatory trial data under a pre-registered protocol, the approach yields more precise effect estimates, resolves conflicting findings across trials, and supports regulatory or clinical guideline decisions with the highest level of evidence available in the evidence hierarchy. | 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. |
| ScholarGateDatu kopa ↗ |
|
|