4. Comparison of statistical significance (at 5% two‐sided level) of IPD‐MA and AD‐MA across 190 comparisons according to type of analysis.
| AD‐MA | ||||
| Main effect analysis | Not significant | Significant* | Total | |
| IPD‐MA | Not significant | 42 (29) | 6 (4) | 48 (33) |
| Significant* | 25 (17) | 71 (49) | 96 (67) | |
| Total | 67 (47) | 77 (53) | 144 (100) | |
| Treatment effect modifier analysis | Not significant | Significant* | Total | |
| IPD‐MA | Not significant | 35 (76) | 4 (9) | 39 (85) |
| Significant* | 3 (7) | 4 (9) | 7 (16) | |
| Total | 38 (83) | 8 (17) | 46 (100) | |
Abbreviations: AD: Aggregate data, AD‐MA: Aggregate data meta‐analysis, IPD: Individual participant data, IPD‐MA: Individual participant data meta‐analysis
Table entries are number (%) of comparisons.
*Statistical significance determined using standardised effect estimates for 174 comparisons where effect estimates are Hazard Ratio, Risk Ratio, Odds Ratio, Rate Ratio and Mean Difference (plotted in Figure 4 and Figure 5), and using the data as presented for the remaining 16 comparisons (e.g. a study presented results as a regression coefficient with P value).