Inconsistent ethics reporting in individual participant data meta-analyses: a call for updating PRISMA and PRISMA-IPD
Abstract
Background: Interest in performing individual participant (or patient) data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has increased in recent years. With our PubMed search approach which considered only the titles of the articles and was conducted in October 2025, the first IPD-MA was published in 1998, whereas 198 were published in the first 9 months of 2025. Researchers use PRISMA 2020 and, above all, PRISMA-IPD to report the results of these studies.Main text: There are five ethics items─which are not included in either PRISMA 2020 or PRISMA-IPD─that are inconsistently included in the IPD-MA published in prominent medical journals, as shown in a sample of 19 IPD-MAs published in top general/internal medicine journals between January and September 2025. Two items refer to the RCTs included in the meta-analysis, i.e., whether approval from a research ethics committee (REC) was obtained, and whether participants of those trials provided informed consent. The other three items refer to the IPD-MA itself, i.e., whether it was approved by an REC, what the de-identification status was for the data (i.e. pseudonymized vs. anonymized), and whether the participants in all the trials included in the meta-analysis had given their consent or had not objected to the secondary use and sharing of their data with third parties.Conclusions: Due to their relevance, readers should be informed about these five items in the text of the IPD-MA or, as an alternative in certain cases, in the disclosure section of the IPD-MA published report. Specifically, the two items of information concerning the trials included in the IPD-MA should be included in an updated PRISMA 2020. All five items should be included in the next update of the PRISMA-IPD.
Related
- Predictors of pulmonary embolism in chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases patients admitted for worsening respiratory symptoms: An individual participant data meta-analyses
- Gestational Weight Gain and Maternal Immediate Perinatal and Postpartum Outcomes in Low and Middle Income Countries: Individual Participant Data Meta-Analyses
- Outdoor attractive targeted sugar bait Phase III trials for malaria control in Kenya, Mali, and Zambia: An individual participant data meta-analysis
- Effects and moderators of exercise on sleep in adults with cancer: Individual patient data and aggregated meta-analyses
- Inconsistent odor-threshold measurements limit prediction from molecular structure
BibTeX
@article{dalre2026inconsistent,
title = {{Inconsistent ethics reporting in individual participant data meta-analyses: a call for updating PRISMA and PRISMA-IPD}},
author = {Rafael Dal-Ré and Florence T. Bourgeois and Lars G Hemkens and Sören Holm and David Moher and Florian Naudet},
journal = {BMC Medicine},
year = {2026},
month = jul,
doi = {10.1186/s12916-026-05056-8},
url = {https://hal.science/hal-05742782v1},
note = {CC BY-NC-ND 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Inconsistent ethics reporting in individual participant data meta-analyses: a call for updating PRISMA and PRISMA-IPD
AU - Rafael Dal-Ré
AU - Florence T. Bourgeois
AU - Lars G Hemkens
AU - Sören Holm
AU - David Moher
AU - Florian Naudet
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/07/14
JO - BMC Medicine
DO - 10.1186/s12916-026-05056-8
UR - https://hal.science/hal-05742782v1
AB - Background: Interest in performing individual participant (or patient) data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has increased in recent years. With our PubMed search approach which considered only the titles of the articles and was conducted in October 2025, the first IPD-MA was published in 1998, whereas 198 were published in the first 9 months of 2025. Researchers use PRISMA 2020 and, above all, PRISMA-IPD to report the results of these studies.Main text: There are five ethics items─which are not included in either PRISMA 2020 or PRISMA-IPD─that are inconsistently included in the IPD-MA published in prominent medical journals, as shown in a sample of 19 IPD-MAs published in top general/internal medicine journals between January and September 2025. Two items refer to the RCTs included in the meta-analysis, i.e., whether approval from a research ethics committee (REC) was obtained, and whether participants of those trials provided informed consent. The other three items refer to the IPD-MA itself, i.e., whether it was approved by an REC, what the de-identification status was for the data (i.e. pseudonymized vs. anonymized), and whether the participants in all the trials included in the meta-analysis had given their consent or had not objected to the secondary use and sharing of their data with third parties.Conclusions: Due to their relevance, readers should be informed about these five items in the text of the IPD-MA or, as an alternative in certain cases, in the disclosure section of the IPD-MA published report. Specifically, the two items of information concerning the trials included in the IPD-MA should be included in an updated PRISMA 2020. All five items should be included in the next update of the PRISMA-IPD.
SN - 1741-7015
SN - 1741-7015
ER -