Inconsistent ethics reporting in individual participant data meta-analyses: a call for updating PRISMA and PRISMA-IPD

Area of Science:

• Medical research methodology
• Biostatistics
• Clinical trial reporting standards

Background:

• Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has seen significant growth.
• The number of published IPD-MAs has surged, with 198 appearing in the first nine months of 2025.
• PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-IPD are current reporting guidelines for these studies.

Purpose of the Study:

• To identify essential ethics reporting items not covered by current PRISMA guidelines.
• To assess the consistency of reporting these ethics items in prominent medical journals.
• To recommend improvements for future IPD-MA reporting standards.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of 19 IPD-MAs published in top general/internal medicine journals (Jan-Sep 2025).
• Evaluation of reporting practices for five specific ethics items related to RCTs and the IPD-MA itself.
• Comparison of reported ethics items against PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-IPD standards.

Main Results:

• Five critical ethics items are inconsistently reported across IPD-MAs.
• These items include REC approval and informed consent for included RCTs.
• Additional items concern REC approval for the IPD-MA, data de-identification status, and participant consent for data sharing.

Conclusions:

• Readers need clear information on these five ethics items within IPD-MA reports.
• Two items regarding included RCTs should be integrated into PRISMA 2020.
• All five ethics items should be incorporated into the next PRISMA-IPD update for comprehensive reporting.