Examining covariate-specific treatment effects in individual participant data meta-analysis: Framing aggregation bias in terms of trial-level confounding and funnel plots

To understand a treatment's potential impact at the individual level, it is crucial to explore whether the effect differs across patient subgroups and covariate values. Meta-analysis provides an important tool for detecting treatment-covariate interactions, as it can improve power compared to a single study. However, aggregation bias can occur when estimating individual-level treatment-covariate interactions in meta-analysis, due to trial-level confounding. This refers to when the association between the covariate and treatment effect <i>across</i> trials (at the aggregate level) differs from that observed <i>within</i> trials (at the individual level). It is, thus, recommended that heterogeneity in the treatment effect at the individual level should be disentangled from that at the trial level, ideally using an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. Here, we explain this issue and provide new intuition about how trial-level confounding is impacted by differences in within-trial distributions of covariates and how this corresponds to asymmetry in subgroup-specific funnel plots in the case of categorical covariates. We then propose a sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of interaction estimates to potential trial-level confounding. We illustrate these concepts using simulated and real data from an IPD meta-analysis of trials conducted on the TICO/ACTIV-3 platform, which assessed passive immunotherapy treatments for inpatients with COVID-19.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Research Synthesis Methods
Published
2025-10-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/rsm.2025.10043
Primary Topic
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Examining covariate-specific treatment effects in individual participant data meta-analysis: Framing aggregation bias in terms of trial-level confounding and funnel plots

Peter J. Godolphin, Joseph S. Koopmeiners, Lianne Siegel, Richard D Riley et al.
Research Synthesis Methods
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
article

Examining covariate-specific treatment effects in individual participant data meta-analysis: Framing aggregation bias in terms of trial-level confounding and funnel plots

Peter J. Godolphin, Joseph S. Koopmeiners, Lianne Siegel, Richard D Riley, Giota Touloumi, Jamie Hartmann‐Boyce, Kirk U. Knowlton, Abdel G. Babiker
article en

Abstract

To understand a treatment's potential impact at the individual level, it is crucial to explore whether the effect differs across patient subgroups and covariate values. Meta-analysis provides an important tool for detecting treatment-covariate interactions, as it can improve power compared to a single study. However, aggregation bias can occur when estimating individual-level treatment-covariate interactions in meta-analysis, due to trial-level confounding. This refers to when the association between the covariate and treatment effect <i>across</i> trials (at the aggregate level) differs from that observed <i>within</i> trials (at the individual level). It is, thus, recommended that heterogeneity in the treatment effect at the individual level should be disentangled from that at the trial level, ideally using an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. Here, we explain this issue and provide new intuition about how trial-level confounding is impacted by differences in within-trial distributions of covariates and how this corresponds to asymmetry in subgroup-specific funnel plots in the case of categorical covariates. We then propose a sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of interaction estimates to potential trial-level confounding. We illustrate these concepts using simulated and real data from an IPD meta-analysis of trials conducted on the TICO/ACTIV-3 platform, which assessed passive immunotherapy treatments for inpatients with COVID-19.

Research Synthesis MethodsVol. 17(1)
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (GR), University of Massachusetts Amherst (US), University of Minnesota System (US), Intermountain Medical Center (US), University College London (GB), University of Birmingham (GB)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Prostate Cancer Foundation, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Department of Health and Social Care, University of Cambridge, National Institutes of Health, Medical Research Council, Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Center for Tobacco Products
Openalex Percentile: Top 70%
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.