Accounting for uncertainty due to 'last observation carried forward' outcome imputation in a meta-analysis model

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 34, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 742-752

  Dimitrakopoulou, Vasiliki ^a   Efthimiou, Orestis ^a   Leucht, Stefan ^b   Salanti, Georgia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOANNINA   (Greece)

^b TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Amisulpride; Bayesian meta analysis; LOCF approach; Missing data; Randomized controlled trials; Schizophrenia

Indexed keywords

AMISULPRIDE; FLUPENTIXOL; HALOPERIDOL; NEUROLEPTIC AGENT; SULPIRIDE; SULTOPRIDE;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CALCULATION; DRUG EFFICACY; HUMAN; LAST OBSERVATION CARRIED FORWARD METHOD; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; META ANALYSIS; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROBABILITY; RELIABILITY; SCHIZOPHRENIA; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION; UNCERTAINTY; ANALOGS AND DERIVATIVES; BIOSTATISTICS; MARKOV CHAIN; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); MONTE CARLO METHOD; ODDS RATIO; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STATISTICAL BIAS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ANTIPSYCHOTIC AGENTS; BAYES THEOREM; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BIOSTATISTICS; HUMANS; MARKOV CHAINS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; ODDS RATIO; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; SCHIZOPHRENIA; SULPIRIDE; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 84921592086     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.6364     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0, The Cochrane Collaboration, Higgins JPT, Hollis S (eds), Vol.2011, 2011, (Available from: www.cochrane-handbook.org.) [accessed on March 2011].
2. Higgins JPT, Douglas GA, Peter CG, Peter JΓ, David M, Andrew DO, Jelena S, Kenneth FS, Laura W, Jonathan ACS. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ; 343. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d5928.
3. Tierney JF, Stewart LA. Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysis. International Journal of Epidemiology 2005; 34(1):79-87.
4. White IR, Higgins JPT, Wood AM. Allowing for uncertainty due to missing data in meta-analysis-part 1: two-stage methods. Statistics Medicine 2008; 27(5):711-727.
5. Altman DG, Bland JM. Missing data. BMJ 2007; 334(7590):424.
6. Groenwold RH, Donders AR, Roes KC, Harrell FE, Moons KG. Dealing with missing outcome data in randomized trials and observational studies. American Journal of Epidemiology 2012; 175(3):210-217.
7. Higgins JPT, White IR, Wood AM. Imputation methods for missing outcome data in meta-analysis of clinical trials. Clinical Trials 2008; 5(3):225-239.
8. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0, 2011. Available from: www.cochrane-handbook.org [accessed on March 2011].
9. Mallinckrodt CH, Watkin JG, Molenberghs G, Carroll RJ. Choice of the primary analysis in longitudinal clinical trials. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2004; 3(3):161-169.
10. Leucht S, Cipriani A, Spineli L, Mavridis D, Orey D, Richter F, Samara M, Barbui C, RR Engel, Geddes JR, Kissling W, Stapf MP, Lassig B, Salanti G, Davis JM. Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 15 antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis. Lancet 2013; 382(9896):951-962.
11. Gamble C, Hollis S. Uncertainty method improved on best-worst case analysis in a binary meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2005; 58(6):579-588.
12. White IR, Welton NJ, Wood AM, Ades AE, Higgins JPT. Allowing for uncertainty due to missing data in meta-analysis-part 2: hierarchical models. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27(5):728-745.
13. Puech A, Fleurot O, Rein W. Amisulpride, and atypical antipsychotic, in the treatment of acute episodes of schizophrenia: a dose-ranging study vs. haloperidol. The Amisulpride Study Group. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 1998; 98(1):65-72.
14. Colonna L, Saleem P, Dondey-Nouvel L, Rein W. Long-term safety and efficacy of amisulpride in subchronic or chronic schizophrenia, Amisulpride Study Group. International Clinical Psychopharmacology 2000; 15(1):13-22.
15. Carriere P, Bonhomme D, Lemperiere T. Amisulpride has a superior benefit/risk profile to haloperidol in schizophrenia: results of a multicentre, double-blind study (the Amisulpride Study Group). European Psychiatry 2000; 15(5):321-329.
16. Moller HJ, Boyer P, Fleurot O, Rein W. Improvement of acute exacerbations of schizophrenia with amisulpride: a comparison with haloperidol. PROD-ASLP Study Group. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1997; 132(4):396-401.
17. Wetzel H, Grunder G, Hillert A, Philipp M, Gattaz WF, Sauer H, Adler G, Schroder J, Rein W, Benkert O. Amisulpride versus flupentixol in schizophrenia with predominantly positive symptomatology-a double-blind controlled study comparing a selective D2-like antagonist to a mixed D1-/D2-like antagonist. The Amisulpride Study Group. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1998; 137(3):223-232.
18. Guy W. Clinical global impressions. In ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology: Rockville, MD, 1976; pp. 218-222.
19. Leucht S, Kane JM, Kissling W, Hamann J, Etschel E, Engel R. Clinical implications of Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale scores. British Journal of Psychiatry 2005; 187:366-371.
20. Chu H, Wang Z, Cole SR, Greenland S. Sensitivity analysis of misclassification: a graphical and a Bayesian approach. Annals of Epidemiology 2006; 16(11):834-841.
21. Diggle PG. Estimating prevalence using an imperfect test. Epidemiology Research International 2011;2011, available at 10.1155/2011/608719.
22. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2005; 58(10):982-990.
23. Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, Spiegelhalter D. WinBUGS-A Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Statistics and Computing 2000; 10(4):325-337.
24. Altman DG. Missing outcomes in randomized trials: addressing the dilemma. Open.Med. 2009; 3(2):e51-e53.
25. Mallinckrod CH, Lane PW, Schnell D, Peng Y, Mancuso JP. Recommendations for the primary analysis of continuous endpoints in longitudinal clinical trials. Drug Information Journal 2008; 42(4):303-319.
26. Ma X, Nie L, Cole SR, Chu H. Statistical methods for multivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic tests: an overview and tutorial. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2013; 0(0):1-24.