5. Comparison of significance (at 5% two‐sided level) of IPD‐MA and AD‐MA across 174 comparisons according to similarity of data and treatment effect type (main effect and effect modifier analyses).
| AD‐MA | ||||
| Same trials and patients, same treatment effect | Not significant | Significant* | Total | |
| IPD‐MA | Not significant | 28 (47) | 5 (8) | 33 (56) |
| Significant* | 4 (7) | 22 (37) | 26 (44) | |
| Total | 32 (54) | 27 (46) | 59 (100) | |
| Same trials and patients, different treatment effect | ||||
| IPD‐MA | Not significant | 8 (22) | 1 (3) | 9 (25) |
| Significant* | 10 (28) | 17 (47) | 27 (75) | |
| Total | 18 (50) | 18 (50) | 36 (100) | |
| Different trials and patients, same treatment effect | ||||
| IPD‐MA | Not significant | 30 (54) | 3 (5) | 33 (59) |
| Significant* | 9 (16) | 14 (25) | 23 (41) | |
| Total | 39 (70) | 17 (30) | 56 (100) | |
| Different trials and patients, different treatment effect | ||||
| IPD‐MA | Not significant | 11 (28) | 1 (3) | 12 (31) |
| Significant* | 5 (13) | 22 (56) | 27 (69) | |
| Total | 16 (41) | 23 (59) | 39 (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.
*16 comparisons with insufficient numerical data regarding number of patients have been excluded from this table