Individual Participant Data (IPD) Meta-analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials: Guidance on Their Use

Jayne Tierney and colleagues offer guidance on how to spot a well-designed and well-conducted individual participant data meta-analysis.

Summary Points 

• Systematic reviews are most commonly based on aggregate data extracted from publications or obtained from trial investigators. 

• Systematic reviews involving the central collection and analysis of individual participant data (IPD) usually are larger-scale, international, collaborative projects that can bring about substantial improvements to the quantity and quality of data, give greater scope in the analyses, and provide more detailed and robust results. 

• The process of collecting, checking, and analysing IPD is more complex than for aggregate data, and not all IPD meta-analyses are done to the same standard, making it difficult for researchers, clinicians, patients, policy makers, funders, and publishers to judge their quality. 

• Following our step-by-step guide will help reviewers and users of IPD meta-analyses to understand them better and recognise those that are well designed and conducted and so help ensure that policy, practice, and research are informed by robust evidence about the effects of interventions.

The Casimir effect in the presence of compactified universal extra dimensions

The Casimir force in a system consisting of two parallel conducting plates in the presence of compactified universal extra dimensions (UXD) is analyzed. The Casimir force with UXDs differs from the force obtained without extra dimensions. A new power law for the Casimir force is derived. By comparison to experimental data the size R of the universal extra dimensions can be restricted to R⩽10 nm for one extra dimension.

After the Liverpool Care Pathway clear guidance and support on end-of-life care is needed

Commentary on: Ramasamy Venkatasalu M, Whiting D, Cairnduff K. Life after the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP): a qualitative study of critical care practitioners delivering end-of-life care. J Adv Nurs 2015;71:2108–18.

Guidance for laboratories performing molecular pathology for cancer patients

Molecular testing is becoming an important part of the diagnosis of any patient with cancer. The challenge to laboratories is to meet this need, using reliable methods and processes to ensure that patients receive a timely and accurate report on which their treatment will be based. The aim of this paper is to provide minimum requirements for the management of molecular pathology laboratories. This general guidance should be augmented by the specific guidance available for different tumour types and tests. Preanalytical considerations are important, and careful consideration of the way in which specimens are obtained and reach the laboratory is necessary. Sample receipt and handling follow standard operating procedures, but some alterations may be necessary if molecular testing is to be performed, for instance to control tissue fixation. DNA and RNA extraction can be standardised and should be checked for quality and quantity of output on a regular basis. The choice of analytical method(s) depends on clinical requirements, desired turnaround time, and expertise available. Internal quality control, regular internal audit of the whole testing process, laboratory accreditation, and continual participation in external quality assessment schemes are prerequisites for delivery of a reliable service. A molecular pathology report should accurately convey the information the clinician needs to treat the patient with sufficient information to allow for correct interpretation of the result. Molecular pathology is developing rapidly, and further detailed evidence-based recommendations are required for many of the topics covered here.