Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary information, available prior to the IPD meta-analysis, about 14 trials that were included in the aggregate data meta-analysis of Thangaratinam et al. [31] and had promised their IPD at the time of the IPD meta-analysis grant application

From: Simulation-based power calculations for planning a two-stage individual participant data meta-analysis

  

Intervention group

Control group

 

Author

Year

n

Mean weight gain (kg)

SD of weight gain

Mean BMI at baseline

SD of BMI

n

Mean weight gain (kg)

SD of weight gain

Mean BMI at baseline

SD of BMI

Intervention effect (difference in weight gain)

95% CI

Wolff

2008

23

6.60

5.50

34.90

4.00

27

13.30

7.50

34.60

3.00

−6.70

(− 10.31, −3.09)

Landon

2009

476

2.80

4.50

30.10

5.00

455

5.00

3.30

30.20

5.10

−2.20

(−2.71, −1.69)

Rae

2000

67

11.56

10.80

37.90

0.70

58

9.68

11.04

38.00

0.70

1.88

(−1.96, 5.72)

Guelinck

2010

42

9.80

7.60

33.75

3.79

43

10.60

6.90

33.50

3.90

−0.80

(−3.89, 2.29)

Jeffries

2009

124

10.70

4.21

NA

NA

111

11.50

4.03

NA

NA

−0.80

(−1.85, 0.25)

Jackson

2010

163

15.15

5.50

NA

NA

164

15.24

6.67

NA

NA

−0.09

(−1.41, 1.23)

Hui

2006

24

14.20

5.30

23.40

3.90

21

14.20

6.30

25.70

6.30

0.00

(−3.43, 3.43)

Ong

2009

6

3.70

3.40

35.10

3.50

6

5.20

1.30

35.10

3.50

−1.50

(−4.41, 1.41)

Khaledan

2010

18

4.04

3.49

NA

NA

21

5.00

3.70

NA

NA

−0.96

(−3.22, 1.30)

Barakat

2009

72

11.50

3.70

24.30

0.50

70

12.40

3.40

23.40

0.50

−0.90

(−2.07, 0.27)

Haakstad

2009

52

13.00

4.00

NA

NA

53

13.80

3.80

NA

NA

−0.80

(−2.29, 0.69)

Hopkins

2010

47

8.20

3.49

25.50

4.30

37

8.00

3.70

25.40

2.90

0.20

(−1.35, 1.75)

Marquez-Sterling

2000

9

16.20

3.40

22.80

4.00

6

15.70

4.00

24.50

4.50

0.50

(−3.40, 4.40)

Yeo

2009

60

15.90

6.80

NA

NA

64

15.40

5.90

NA

NA

0.50

(−1.75, 2.75)