Calculating the power of a planned individual participant data meta-analysis to examine prognostic factor effects for a binary outcome.

Collecting data for an individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) project can be time consuming and resource intensive and could still have insufficient power to answer the question of interest. Therefore, researchers should consider the power of their planned IPDMA before collecting IPD. Here we propose a method to estimate the power of a planned IPDMA project aiming to synthesise multiple cohort studies to investigate the (unadjusted or adjusted) effects of potential prognostic factors for a binary outcome. We consider both binary and continuous factors and provide a three-step approach to estimating the power in advance of collecting IPD, under an assumption of the true prognostic effect of each factor of interest. The first step uses routinely available (published) aggregate data for each study to approximate Fisher's information matrix and thereby estimate the anticipated variance of the unadjusted prognostic factor effect in each study. These variances are then used in step 2 to estimate the anticipated variance of the summary prognostic effect from the IPDMA. Finally, step 3 uses this variance to estimate the corresponding IPDMA power, based on a two-sided Wald test and the assumed true effect. Extensions are provided to adjust the power calculation for the presence of additional covariates correlated with the prognostic factor of interest (by using a variance inflation factor) and to allow for between-study heterogeneity in prognostic effects. An example is provided for illustration, and Stata code is supplied to enable researchers to implement the method.

Development and external validation of the eFalls tool: a multivariable prediction model for the risk of ED attendance or hospitalisation with a fall or fracture in older adults.

BACKGROUND: Falls are common in older adults and can devastate personal independence through injury such as fracture and fear of future falls. Methods to identify people for falls prevention interventions are currently limited, with high risks of bias in published prediction models. We have developed and externally validated the eFalls prediction model using routinely collected primary care electronic health records (EHR) to predict risk of emergency department attendance/hospitalisation with fall or fracture within 1 year. METHODS: Data comprised two independent, retrospective cohorts of adults aged ≥65 years: the population of Wales, from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank (model development); the population of Bradford and Airedale, England, from Connected Bradford (external validation). Predictors included electronic frailty index components, supplemented with variables informed by literature reviews and clinical expertise. Fall/fracture risk was modelled using multivariable logistic regression with a Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator penalty. Predictive performance was assessed through calibration, discrimination and clinical utility. Apparent, internal-external cross-validation and external validation performance were assessed across general practices and in clinically relevant subgroups. RESULTS: The model's discrimination performance (c-statistic) was 0.72 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.68 to 0.76) on internal-external cross-validation and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.80 to 0.83) on external validation. Calibration was variable across practices, with some over-prediction in the validation population (calibration-in-the-large, -0.87; 95% CI: -0.96 to -0.78). Clinical utility on external validation was improved after recalibration. CONCLUSION: The eFalls prediction model shows good performance and could support proactive stratification for falls prevention services if appropriately embedded into primary care EHR systems.

Risk of bias assessments in individual participant data meta-analyses of test accuracy and prediction models: a review shows improvements are needed.

OBJECTIVES: Risk of bias assessments are important in meta-analyses of both aggregate and individual participant data (IPD). There is limited evidence on whether and how risk of bias of included studies or datasets in IPD meta-analyses (IPDMAs) is assessed. We review how risk of bias is currently assessed, reported, and incorporated in IPDMAs of test accuracy and clinical prediction model studies and provide recommendations for improvement. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched PubMed (January 2018-May 2020) to identify IPDMAs of test accuracy and prediction models, then elicited whether each IPDMA assessed risk of bias of included studies and, if so, how assessments were reported and subsequently incorporated into the IPDMAs. RESULTS: Forty-nine IPDMAs were included. Nineteen of 27 (70%) test accuracy IPDMAs assessed risk of bias, compared to 5 of 22 (23%) prediction model IPDMAs. Seventeen of 19 (89%) test accuracy IPDMAs used Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2), but no tool was used consistently among prediction model IPDMAs. Of IPDMAs assessing risk of bias, 7 (37%) test accuracy IPDMAs and 1 (20%) prediction model IPDMA provided details on the information sources (e.g., the original manuscript, IPD, primary investigators) used to inform judgments, and 4 (21%) test accuracy IPDMAs and 1 (20%) prediction model IPDMA provided information or whether assessments were done before or after obtaining the IPD of the included studies or datasets. Of all included IPDMAs, only seven test accuracy IPDMAs (26%) and one prediction model IPDMA (5%) incorporated risk of bias assessments into their meta-analyses. For future IPDMA projects, we provide guidance on how to adapt tools such as Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (for prediction models) and QUADAS-2 (for test accuracy) to assess risk of bias of included primary studies and their IPD. CONCLUSION: Risk of bias assessments and their reporting need to be improved in IPDMAs of test accuracy and, especially, prediction model studies. Using recommended tools, both before and after IPD are obtained, will address this.

Mechanisms of action of therapeutic exercise for knee and hip OA remain a black box phenomenon: an individual patient data mediation study with the OA Trial Bank.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate mediating factors for the effect of therapeutic exercise on pain and physical function in people with knee/hip osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: For Subgrouping and TargetEd Exercise pRogrammes for knee and hip OsteoArthritis (STEER OA), individual participant data (IPD) were sought from all published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing therapeutic exercise to non-exercise controls in people with knee/hip OA. Using the Counterfactual framework, the effect of the exercise intervention and the percentage mediated through each potential mediator (muscle strength, proprioception and range of motion (ROM)) for knee OA and muscle strength for hip OA were determined. RESULTS: Data from 12 of 31 RCTs of STEER OA (1407 participants) were available. Within the IPD data sets, there were generally statistically significant effects from therapeutic exercise for pain and physical function in comparison to non-exercise controls. Of all potential mediators, only the change in knee extension strength was statistically and significantly associated with the change in pain in knee OA (ß -0.03 (95% CI -0.05 to -0.01), 2.3% mediated) and with physical function in knee OA (ß -0.02 (95% CI -0.04 to -0.00), 2.0% mediated) and hip OA (ß -0.03 (95% CI -0.07 to -0.00), no mediation). CONCLUSIONS: This first IPD mediation analysis of this scale revealed that in people with knee OA, knee extension strength only mediated ±2% of the effect of therapeutic exercise on pain and physical function. ROM and proprioception did not mediate changes in outcomes, nor did knee extension strength in people with hip OA. As 98% of the effectiveness of therapeutic exercise compared with non-exercise controls remains unexplained, more needs to be done to understand the underlying mechanisms of actions.

Two-stage or not two-stage? That is the question for IPD meta-analysis projects.

Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) projects obtain, check, harmonise and synthesise raw data from multiple studies. When undertaking the meta-analysis, researchers must decide between a two-stage or a one-stage approach. In a two-stage approach, the IPD are first analysed separately within each study to obtain aggregate data (e.g., treatment effect estimates and standard errors); then, in the second stage, these aggregate data are combined in a standard meta-analysis model (e.g., common-effect or random-effects). In a one-stage approach, the IPD from all studies are analysed in a single step using an appropriate model that accounts for clustering of participants within studies and, potentially, between-study heterogeneity (e.g., a general or generalised linear mixed model). The best approach to take is debated in the literature, and so here we provide clearer guidance for a broad audience. Both approaches are important tools for IPDMA researchers and neither are a panacea. If most studies in the IPDMA are small (few participants or events), a one-stage approach is recommended due to using a more exact likelihood. However, in other situations, researchers can choose either approach, carefully following best practice. Some previous claims recommending to always use a one-stage approach are misleading, and the two-stage approach will often suffice for most researchers. When differences do arise between the two approaches, often it is caused by researchers using different modelling assumptions or estimation methods, rather than using one or two stages per se.

Calculating the power of a planned individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised trials to examine a treatment-covariate interaction with a time-to-event outcome.

Before embarking on an individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) project, researchers should consider the power of their planned IPDMA conditional on the studies promising their IPD and their characteristics. Such power estimates help inform whether the IPDMA project is worth the time and funding investment, before IPD are collected. Here, we suggest how to estimate the power of a planned IPDMA of randomised trials aiming to examine treatment-covariate interactions at the participant-level (i.e., treatment effect modifiers). We focus on a time-to-event (survival) outcome with a binary or continuous covariate, and propose an approximate analytic power calculation that conditions on the actual characteristics of trials, for example, in terms of sample sizes and covariate distributions. The proposed method has five steps: (i) extracting the following aggregate data for each group in each trial-the number of participants and events, the mean and SD for each continuous covariate, and the proportion of participants in each category for each binary covariate; (ii) specifying a minimally important interaction size; (iii) deriving an approximate estimate of Fisher's information matrix for each trial and the corresponding variance of the interaction estimate per trial, based on assuming an exponential survival distribution; (iv) deriving the estimated variance of the summary interaction estimate from the planned IPDMA, under a common-effect assumption, and (v) calculating the power of the IPDMA based on a two-sided Wald test. Stata and R code are provided and a real example provided for illustration. Further evaluation in real examples and simulations is needed.

Moderators of the effect of therapeutic exercise for knee and hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many international clinical guidelines recommend therapeutic exercise as a core treatment for knee and hip osteoarthritis. We aimed to identify individual patient-level moderators of the effect of therapeutic exercise for reducing pain and improving physical function in people with knee osteoarthritis, hip osteoarthritis, or both. METHODS: We did a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing therapeutic exercise with non-exercise controls in people with knee osteoathritis, hip osteoarthritis, or both. We searched ten databases from March 1, 2012, to Feb 25, 2019, for randomised controlled trials comparing the effects of exercise with non-exercise or other exercise controls on pain and physical function outcomes among people with knee osteoarthritis, hip osteoarthritis, or both. IPD were requested from leads of all eligible randomised controlled trials. 12 potential moderators of interest were explored to ascertain whether they were associated with short-term (12 weeks), medium-term (6 months), and long-term (12 months) effects of exercise on self-reported pain and physical function, in comparison with non-exercise controls. Overall intervention effects were also summarised. This study is prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017054049). FINDINGS: Of 91 eligible randomised controlled trials that compared exercise with non-exercise controls, IPD from 31 randomised controlled trials (n=4241 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. Randomised controlled trials included participants with knee osteoarthritis (18 [58%] of 31 trials), hip osteoarthritis (six [19%]), or both (seven [23%]) and tested heterogeneous exercise interventions versus heterogeneous non-exercise controls, with variable risk of bias. Summary meta-analysis results showed that, on average, compared with non-exercise controls, therapeutic exercise reduced pain on a standardised 0-100 scale (with 100 corresponding to worst pain), with a difference of -6·36 points (95% CI -8·45 to -4·27, borrowing of strength [BoS] 10·3%, between-study variance [τ2] 21·6) in the short term, -3·77 points (-5·97 to -1·57, BoS 30·0%, τ2 14·4) in the medium term, and -3·43 points (-5·18 to -1·69, BoS 31·7%, τ2 4·5) in the long term. Therapeutic exercise also improved physical function on a standardised 0-100 scale (with 100 corresponding to worst physical function), with a difference of -4·46 points in the short term (95% CI -5·95 to -2·98, BoS 10·5%, τ2 10·1), -2·71 points in the medium term (-4·63 to -0·78, BoS 33·6%, τ2 11·9), and -3·39 points in the long term (-4·97 to -1·81, BoS 34·1%, τ2 6·4). Baseline pain and physical function moderated the effect of exercise on pain and physical function outcomes. Those with higher self-reported pain and physical function scores at baseline (ie, poorer physical function) generally benefited more than those with lower self-reported pain and physical function scores at baseline, with the evidence most certain in the short term (12 weeks). INTERPRETATION: There was evidence of a small, positive overall effect of therapeutic exercise on pain and physical function compared with non-exercise controls. However, this effect is of questionable clinical importance, particularly in the medium and long term. As individuals with higher pain severity and poorer physical function at baseline benefited more than those with lower pain severity and better physical function at baseline, targeting individuals with higher levels of osteoarthritis-related pain and disability for therapeutic exercise might be of merit. FUNDING: Chartered Society of Physiotherapy Charitable Trust and the National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Calculating the power to examine treatment-covariate interactions when planning an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized trials with a binary outcome.

Before embarking on an individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) project, researchers and funders need assurance it is worth their time and cost. This should include consideration of how many studies are promising their IPD and, given the characteristics of these studies, the power of an IPDMA including them. Here, we show how to estimate the power of a planned IPDMA of randomized trials to examine treatment-covariate interactions at the participant level (ie, treatment effect modifiers). We focus on a binary outcome with binary or continuous covariates, and propose a three-step approach, which assumes the true interaction size is common to all trials. In step one, the user must specify a minimally important interaction size and, for each trial separately (eg, as obtained from trial publications), the following aggregate data: the number of participants and events in control and treatment groups, the mean and SD for each continuous covariate, and the proportion of participants in each category for each binary covariate. This allows the variance of the interaction estimate to be calculated for each trial, using an analytic solution for Fisher's information matrix from a logistic regression model. Step 2 calculates the variance of the summary interaction estimate from the planned IPDMA (equal to the inverse of the sum of the inverse trial variances from step 1), and step 3 calculates the corresponding power based on a two-sided Wald test. Stata and R code are provided, and two examples given for illustration. Extension to allow for between-study heterogeneity is also considered.

Multivariate meta-analysis of multiple outcomes: characteristics and predictors of borrowing of strength from Cochrane reviews.

OBJECTIVES: Multivariate meta-analysis allows the joint synthesis of multiple outcomes accounting for their correlation. This enables borrowing of strength (BoS) across outcomes, which may lead to greater efficiency and even different conclusions compared to separate univariate meta-analyses. However, multivariate meta-analysis is complex to apply, so guidance is needed to flag (in advance of analysis) when the approach is most useful. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We use 43 Cochrane intervention reviews to empirically investigate the characteristics of meta-analysis datasets that are associated with a larger BoS statistic (from 0 to 100%) when applying a bivariate meta-analysis of binary outcomes. RESULTS: Four characteristics were identified as strongly associated with BoS: the total number of studies, the number of studies with the outcome of interest, the percentage of studies missing the outcome of interest, and the largest absolute within-study correlation. Using these characteristics, we then develop a model for predicting BoS in a new dataset, which is shown to have good performance (an adjusted R2 of 50%). Applied examples are used to illustrate the use of the BoS prediction model. CONCLUSIONS: Cochrane reviewers mainly use univariate meta-analysis methods, but the identified characteristics associated with BoS and our subsequent prediction model for BoS help to flag when a multivariate meta-analysis may also be beneficial in Cochrane reviews with multiple binary outcomes. Extension to non-Cochrane reviews and other outcome types is still required.

Study protocol for the development and internal validation of Schizophrenia Prediction of Resistance to Treatment (SPIRIT): a clinical tool for predicting risk of treatment resistance to antipsychotics in first-episode schizophrenia.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) is associated with significant impairment of functioning and high treatment costs. Identification of patients at high risk of TRS at the time of their initial diagnosis may significantly improve clinical outcomes and minimise social and functional disability. We aim to develop a prognostic model for predicting the risk of developing TRS in patients with first-episode schizophrenia and to examine its potential utility and acceptability as a clinical decision tool. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use two well-characterised longitudinal UK-based first-episode psychosis cohorts: Aetiology and Ethnicity in Schizophrenia and Other Psychoses and Genetics and Psychosis for which data have been collected on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. We will identify candidate predictors for the model based on current literature and stakeholder consultation. Model development will use all data, with the number of candidate predictors restricted according to available sample size and event rate. A model for predicting risk of TRS will be developed based on penalised regression, with missing data handled using multiple imputation. Internal validation will be undertaken via bootstrapping, obtaining optimism-adjusted estimates of the model's performance. The clinical utility of the model in terms of clinically relevant risk thresholds will be evaluated using net benefit and decision curves (comparative to competing strategies). Consultation with patients and clinical stakeholders will determine potential thresholds of risk for treatment decision-making. The acceptability of embedding the model as a clinical tool will be explored using qualitative focus groups with up to 20 clinicians in total from early intervention services. Clinicians will be recruited from services in Stafford and London with the focus groups being held via an online platform. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The development of the prognostic model will be based on anonymised data from existing cohorts, for which ethical approval is in place. Ethical approval has been obtained from Keele University for the qualitative focus groups within early intervention in psychosis services (ref: MH-210174). Suitable processes are in place to obtain informed consent for National Health Service staff taking part in interviews or focus groups. A study information sheet with cover letter and consent form have been prepared and approved by the local Research Ethics Committee. Findings will be shared through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and social media. A lay summary will be published on collaborator websites.

Effects of mechanical interventions in the management of knee osteoarthritis: protocol for an OA Trial Bank systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent and disabling musculoskeletal condition. Biomechanical factors may play a key role in the aetiology of knee OA, therefore, a broad class of interventions involves the application or wear of devices designed to mechanically support knees with OA. These include gait aids, bracing, taping, orthotics and footwear. The literature regarding efficacy of mechanical interventions has been conflicting or inconclusive, and this may be because certain subgroups with knee OA respond better to mechanical interventions. Our primary aim is to identify subgroups with knee OA who respond favourably to mechanical interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review to identify randomised clinical trials of any mechanical intervention for the treatment of knee OA. We will invite lead authors of eligible studies to share individual participant data (IPD). We will perform an IPD meta-analysis for each type of mechanical intervention to evaluate efficacy, with our main outcome being pain. Where IPD are not available, this will be achieved using aggregate data. We will then evaluate five potential treatment effect modifiers using a two-stage approach. If data permit, we will also evaluate whether biomechanics mediate the effects of mechanical interventions on pain in knee OA. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No new data will be collected in this study. We will adhere to institutional, national and international regulations regarding the secure and confidential sharing of IPD, addressing ethics as indicated. We will disseminate findings via international conferences, open-source publication in peer-reviewed journals and summaries posted on websites serving the public and clinicians. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020155466.

Association between antihypertensive treatment and adverse events: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between antihypertensive treatment and specific adverse events. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of adults receiving antihypertensives compared with placebo or no treatment, more antihypertensive drugs compared with fewer antihypertensive drugs, or higher blood pressure targets compared with lower targets. To avoid small early phase trials, studies were required to have at least 650 patient years of follow-up. INFORMATION SOURCES: Searches were conducted in Embase, Medline, CENTRAL, and the Science Citation Index databases from inception until 14 April 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was falls during trial follow-up. Secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury, fractures, gout, hyperkalaemia, hypokalaemia, hypotension, and syncope. Additional outcomes related to death and major cardiovascular events were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and random effects meta-analysis was used to pool rate ratios, odds ratios, and hazard ratios across studies, allowing for between study heterogeneity (τ2). RESULTS: Of 15 023 articles screened for inclusion, 58 randomised controlled trials were identified, including 280 638 participants followed up for a median of 3 (interquartile range 2-4) years. Most of the trials (n=40, 69%) had a low risk of bias. Among seven trials reporting data for falls, no evidence was found of an association with antihypertensive treatment (summary risk ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.24, τ2=0.009). Antihypertensives were associated with an increased risk of acute kidney injury (1.18, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.39, τ2=0.037, n=15), hyperkalaemia (1.89, 1.56 to 2.30, τ2=0.122, n=26), hypotension (1.97, 1.67 to 2.32, τ2=0.132, n=35), and syncope (1.28, 1.03 to 1.59, τ2=0.050, n=16). The heterogeneity between studies assessing acute kidney injury and hyperkalaemia events was reduced when focusing on drugs that affect the renin angiotensin-aldosterone system. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses focusing on adverse events leading to withdrawal from each trial. Antihypertensive treatment was associated with a reduced risk of all cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and stroke, but not of myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis found no evidence to suggest that antihypertensive treatment is associated with falls but found evidence of an association with mild (hyperkalaemia, hypotension) and severe adverse events (acute kidney injury, syncope). These data could be used to inform shared decision making between doctors and patients about initiation and continuation of antihypertensive treatment, especially in patients at high risk of harm because of previous adverse events or poor renal function. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018116860.

Individual participant data meta-analysis to examine interactions between treatment effect and participant-level covariates: Statistical recommendations for conduct and planning.

Precision medicine research often searches for treatment-covariate interactions, which refers to when a treatment effect (eg, measured as a mean difference, odds ratio, hazard ratio) changes across values of a participant-level covariate (eg, age, gender, biomarker). Single trials do not usually have sufficient power to detect genuine treatment-covariate interactions, which motivate the sharing of individual participant data (IPD) from multiple trials for meta-analysis. Here, we provide statistical recommendations for conducting and planning an IPD meta-analysis of randomized trials to examine treatment-covariate interactions. For conduct, two-stage and one-stage statistical models are described, and we recommend: (i) interactions should be estimated directly, and not by calculating differences in meta-analysis results for subgroups; (ii) interaction estimates should be based solely on within-study information; (iii) continuous covariates and outcomes should be analyzed on their continuous scale; (iv) nonlinear relationships should be examined for continuous covariates, using a multivariate meta-analysis of the trend (eg, using restricted cubic spline functions); and (v) translation of interactions into clinical practice is nontrivial, requiring individualized treatment effect prediction. For planning, we describe first why the decision to initiate an IPD meta-analysis project should not be based on between-study heterogeneity in the overall treatment effect; and second, how to calculate the power of a potential IPD meta-analysis project in advance of IPD collection, conditional on characteristics (eg, number of participants, standard deviation of covariates) of the trials (potentially) promising their IPD. Real IPD meta-analysis projects are used for illustration throughout.

Predictors of the effects of treatment for shoulder pain: protocol of an individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder pain is one of the most common presentations of musculoskeletal pain with a 1-month population prevalence of between 7 and 26%. The overall prognosis of shoulder pain is highly variable with 40% of patients reporting persistent pain 1 year after consulting their primary care clinician. Despite evidence for prognostic value of a range of patient and disease characteristics, it is not clear whether these factors also predict (moderate) the effect of specific treatments (such as corticosteroid injection, exercise, or surgery). OBJECTIVES: This study aims to identify predictors of treatment effect (i.e. treatment moderators or effect modifiers) by investigating the association between a number of pre-defined individual-level factors and the effects of commonly used treatments on shoulder pain and disability outcomes. METHODS: This will be a meta-analysis using individual participant data (IPD). Eligible trials investigating the effectiveness of advice and analgesics, corticosteroid injection, physiotherapy-led exercise, psychological interventions, and/or surgical treatment in patients with shoulder conditions will be identified from systematic reviews and an updated systematic search for trials, and risk of bias will be assessed. Authors of all eligible trials will be approached for data sharing. Outcomes measured will be shoulder pain and disability, and our previous work has identified candidate predictors. The main analysis will be conducted using hierarchical one-stage IPD meta-analysis models, examining the effect of treatment-predictor interaction on outcome for each of the candidate predictors and describing relevant subgroup effects where significant interaction effects are detected. Random effects will be used to account for clustering and heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses will be based on (i) exclusion of trials at high risk of bias, (ii) use of restricted cubic splines to model potential non-linear associations for candidate predictors measured on a continuous scale, and (iii) the use of a two-stage IPD meta-analysis framework. DISCUSSION: Our study will collate, appraise, and synthesise IPD from multiple studies to examine potential predictors of treatment effect in order to assess the potential for better and more efficient targeting of specific treatments for individuals with shoulder pain. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018088298.