Unmasking heterogeneous treatment effects in clinical trials: a location-scale quantile meta-analysis framework (IPD-QMA)
Abstract
Background. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials is the basis of evidence-based medicine, but it usually aggregates treatment effects as a mean difference under a 'location-shift' assumption — that treatment shifts the outcome distribution uniformly for all patients. In psychiatry, oncology and critical care, interventions can instead create a 'location-scale shift', increasing outcome variance without changing the mean, so standard methods may fail to detect efficacy and discard treatments that benefit high-risk subgroups while harming low-risk ones.
Methods. We introduce Individual Participant Data Quantile Meta-Analysis (IPD-QMA), a two-stage framework that uses quantile regression to estimate treatment effects across the severity distribution (τ = 0.1 to 0.9) within studies and pools the coefficients with a random-effects model. We compared IPD-QMA against standard meta-analysis (mean difference) and the log variance ratio (lnVR) using 2,000 Monte Carlo simulations on both Normal and skewed (exponential) data, and developed a 'slope test' (Wald statistic) to test effect homogeneity.
Results. In 'hidden-utility' scenarios where treatment increases variance (scale × 3) but not the mean, standard meta-analysis rejected the null at close to the nominal 5% level (4.2% on Normal and 6.4% on skewed data) — effectively no power to detect the effect — whereas IPD-QMA achieved 100% power to detect benefit at the 90th percentile. The lnVR detected heterogeneity with high power but lacked directionality; the IPD-QMA quantile profile revealed that the treatment was harmful for mild cases but beneficial for severe cases.
Conclusions. IPD-QMA is a diagnostic tool for precision medicine: whereas lnVR screens for heterogeneity, IPD-QMA characterizes its shape, preventing the loss of potentially life-saving interventions for high-risk populations. An open-source implementation is provided.
References
Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F. Methods for Meta-Analysis in Medical Research. Chichester: Wiley; 2000.
Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Chichester: Wiley; 2009.
Kent DM, Rothwell PM, Ioannidis JPA, Altman DG, Hayward RA. Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal. Trials. 2010;11:85. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-11-85. PMID: 20704705.
Iwashyna TJ, Burke JF, Sussman JB, Prescott HC, Hayward RA, Angus DC. Implications of heterogeneity of treatment effect for reporting and analysis of randomized trials in critical care. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;192(9):1045-1051. doi:10.1164/rccm.201411-2125CP. PMID: 26177009.
Berlin JA, Santanna J, Schmid CH, Szczech LA, Feldman HI. Individual patient- versus group-level data meta-regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly head. Stat Med. 2002;21(3):371-387. doi:10.1002/sim.1023. PMID: 11813224.
Nakagawa S, Poulin R, Mengersen K, et al. Meta-analysis of variation: ecological and evolutionary applications and beyond. Methods Ecol Evol. 2015;6(2):143-152. doi:10.1111/2041-210X.12309.
Koenker R, Bassett G. Regression quantiles. Econometrica. 1978;46(1):33-50. doi:10.2307/1913643.
Riley RD, Lambert PC, Abo-Zaid G. Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting. BMJ. 2010;340:c221. doi:10.1136/bmj.c221. PMID: 20139215.
DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177-188. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2. PMID: 3802833.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Laiba Khan

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles in Synthesis are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. Authors retain copyright.