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

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.

How to plan and manage an individual participant data meta-analysis. An illustrative toolkit.

Individual participant data meta-analyses (IPD-MAs) have several benefits over standard aggregate data meta-analyses, including the consideration of additional participants, follow-up time, and the joint consideration of study- and participant-level heterogeneity for improved diagnostic and prognostic model development and evaluation. However, IPD-MAs are resource-intensive and require careful budgeting of time from data contributing groups, a dedicated management team, diversity of expertise, clearly documented data sharing and authorship agreements, and consistent and clear communication. We present a toolkit to facilitate the implementation and management of IPD-MAs, from study recruitment to retrospective harmonization. The toolkit was developed and refined over our work on multiple multinational IPD-MA projects over the last 13 years. The toolkit's budget and email templates, agreements, project management spreadsheets, and standard operating procedures are meant to facilitate routine IPD-MA tasks to expedite implementing and managing future IPD-MA projects.

FAIR, ethical, and coordinated data sharing for COVID-19 response: a scoping review and cross-sectional survey of COVID-19 data sharing platforms and registries.

Data sharing is central to the rapid translation of research into advances in clinical medicine and public health practice. In the context of COVID-19, there has been a rush to share data marked by an explosion of population-specific and discipline-specific resources for collecting, curating, and disseminating participant-level data. We conducted a scoping review and cross-sectional survey to identify and describe COVID-19-related platforms and registries that harmonise and share participant-level clinical, omics (eg, genomic and metabolomic data), imaging data, and metadata. We assess how these initiatives map to the best practices for the ethical and equitable management of data and the findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) principles for data resources. We review gaps and redundancies in COVID-19 data-sharing efforts and provide recommendations to build on existing synergies that align with frameworks for effective and equitable data reuse. We identified 44 COVID-19-related registries and 20 platforms from the scoping review. Data-sharing resources were concentrated in high-income countries and siloed by comorbidity, body system, and data type. Resources for harmonising and sharing clinical data were less likely to implement FAIR principles than those sharing omics or imaging data. Our findings are that more data sharing does not equate to better data sharing, and the semantic and technical interoperability of platforms and registries harmonising and sharing COVID-19-related participant-level data needs to improve to facilitate the global collaboration required to address the COVID-19 crisis.

Heterogeneity of Zika virus exposure and outcome ascertainment across cohorts of pregnant women, their infants and their children: a metadata survey.

OBJECTIVES: To support the Zika virus (ZIKV) Individual Participant Data (IPD) Consortium's efforts to harmonise and analyse IPD from ZIKV-related prospective cohort studies and surveillance-based studies of pregnant women and their infants and children; we developed and disseminated a metadata survey among ZIKV-IPD Meta-Analysis (MA) study participants to identify and provide a comprehensive overview of study-level heterogeneity in exposure, outcome and covariate ascertainment and definitions. SETTING: Cohort and surveillance studies that measured ZIKV infection during pregnancy or at birth and measured fetal, infant, or child outcomes were identified through a systematic search and consultations with ZIKV researchers and Ministries of Health from 20 countries or territories. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-four cohort or active surveillance studies shared deidentified data for the IPD-MA and completed the metadata survey, representing 33 061 women (11 020 with ZIKV) and 18 281 children. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Study-level heterogeneity in exposure, outcome and covariate ascertainment and definitions. RESULTS: Median study sample size was 268 (IQR=100, 698). Inclusion criteria, follow-up procedures and exposure and outcome ascertainment were highly heterogenous, differing meaningfully across regions and multisite studies. Enrolment duration and follow-up for children after birth varied before and after the declaration of the Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) and according to the type of funding received. CONCLUSION: This work highlights the logistic and statistical challenges that must be addressed to account for the multiple sources of within-study and between-study heterogeneity when conducting IPD-MAs of data collected in the research response to emergent pathogens like ZIKV.