Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials: a review of methods used in practice

Background: Meta-analyses based on individual patient data (IPD) are regarded as the gold standard for systematic reviews. However, the methods used for analysing and presenting results from IPD meta-analyses have received little discussion. Methods We review 44 IPD meta-analyses published during the years 1999–2001. We summarize whether they obtained all the data they sought, what types of approaches were used in the analysis, including assumptions of common or random effects, and how they examined the effects of covariates. Results: Twenty-four out of 44 analyses focused on time-to-event outcomes, and most analyses (28) estimated treatment effects within each trial and then combined the results assuming a common treatment effect across trials. Three analyses failed to stratify by trial, analysing the data is if they came from a single mega-trial. Only nine analyses used random effects methods. Covariate-treatment interactions were generally investigated by subgrouping patients. Seven of the meta-analyses included data from less than 80% of the randomized patients sought, but did not address the resulting potential biases. Conclusions: Although IPD meta-analyses have many advantages in assessing the effects of health care, there are several aspects that could be further developed to make fuller use of the potential of these time-consuming projects. In particular, IPD could be used to more fully investigate the influence of covariates on heterogeneity of treatment effects, both within and between trials. The impact of heterogeneity, or use of random effects, are seldom discussed. There is thus considerable scope for enhancing the methods of analysis and presentation of IPD meta-analysis.

The practice of sustainable facilities management: Design sentiments and the knowledge chasm

The construction industry with its nature of project delivery is very fragmented in terms of the various processes that encompass design, construction, facilities and assets management. Facilities managers are in the forefront of delivering sustainable assets management and hence further the venture for mitigation and adaptation to climate change. A questionnaire survey was conducted to establish perceptions, level of commitment and knowledge chasm in practising sustainable facilities management (FM). This has significant implications for sustainable design management, especially in a fragmented industry. The majority of questionnaire respondents indicated the importance of sustainability for their organization. Many of them stated that they reported on sustainability as part of their organization annual reporting with energy efficiency, recycling and waste reduction as the main concern for them. The overwhelming barrier for implementing sound, sustainable FM is the lack of consensual understanding and focus of individuals and organizations about sustainability. There is a knowledge chasm regarding practical information on delivering sustainable FM. Sustainability information asymmetry in design, construction and FM processes render any sustainable design as a sentiment and mere design aspiration. Skills and training provision, traditionally offered separately to designers and facilities managers, needs to be re-evaluated. Sustainability education and training should be developed to provide effective structures and processes to apply sustainability throughout the construction and FM industries coherently and as common practice.

Theory and practice in value management: a reply to Ellis et al (2005)

The constructivist model of 'soft' value management (VM) is contrasted with the VM discourse appropriated by cost consultants who operate from within UK quantity surveying (QS) practices. The enactment of VM by cost consultants is shaped by the institutional context within which they operate and is not necessarily representative of VM practice per se. Opportunities to perform VM during the formative stages of design are further constrained by the positivistic rhetoric that such practitioners use to conceptualize and promote their services. The complex interplay between VM theory and practice is highlighted and analysed from a non-deterministic perspective. Codified models of 'best practice' are seen to be socially constructed and legitimized through human interaction in the context of interorganizational networks. Published methodologies are seen to inform practice in only a loose and indirect manner, with extensive scope for localized improvization. New insights into the relationship between VM theory and practice are derived from the dramaturgical metaphor. The social reality of VM is seen to be constituted through scripts and performances, both of which are continuously contested across organizational arenas. It is concluded that VM defies universal definition and is conceptualized and enacted differently across different localized contexts.

Forum theorizing in the context of professional practice: The case for middle-range theories

This commentary seeks to complement the contribution of the Building Research & Information special issue on 'Developing Theories for the Built Environment' (2008) by highlighting the important role of middle-range theories within the context of professional practice. Middle-range theories provide a form of theorizing that lies between abstract grand theorizing and atheoretical local descriptions. They are also characterized by the way in which they directly engage with the concerns of practitioners. In the context of professional practice, any commitment to theorizing should habitually be combined with an equivalent commitment to empirical research; rarely is it appropriate to neglect one in favour of the other. Any understanding of the role that theory plays in professional practice must further be informed by Schon's seminal ideas on reflective practice. Practitioners are seen to utilize theories as inputs to a process of continuous reflection, thereby guarding against complacency and routinization. The authors would challenge any assumption that academics alone are responsible for generating theories, thereby limiting the role of practitioners to their application. Such a dichotomized view is contrary to established ideas on Mode 2 knowledge production and current trends towards co-production research in the context of the built environment.