Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews: A methodological survey

BMJ Open

Volumn 5, Issue 9, 2015, Pages

  Akl, Elie A ^a,b   Carrasco Labra, Alonso ^b,c   Brignardello Petersen, Romina ^b,c,d   Neumann, Ignacio ^e   Johnston, Bradley C ^d,f   Sun, Xin ^b,g   Briel, Matthias ^b,h   Busse, Jason W ^b,i   Ebrahim, Shanil ^b,j   Granados, Carlos E ^k   Iorio, Alfonso ^b   Irfan, Affan ^l   García, Laura Martínez ^m   Mustafa, Reem A ^b,n   Ramírez Morera, Anggie ^o   Selva, Anna ^m   Solà, Ivan ^m   Sanabria, Andrea Juliana ^m   Tikkinen, Kari A O ^b,p   Vandvik, Per O ^q,r   Vernooij, Robin W M ^m   Zazueta, Oscar E ^m   Zhou, Qi ^b   Guyatt, Gordon H ^b   Alonso Coello, Pablo ^m   more..

^a AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT   (Lebanon)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CHILE   (Chile)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^e PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE CHILE   (Chile)

^f HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN   (Canada)

^g SICHUAN UNIVERSITY   (China)

^h UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL BASEL   (Switzerland)

ⁱ MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^j STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^k UNIVERSIDAD DE LA SABANA   (Colombia)

^l University of Louisville School of Medicine   (United States)

^m CIBER EPIDEMIOLOGÍA Y SALUD PÚBLICA CIBERESP   (Spain)

ⁿ UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI KANSAS CITY   (United States)

^o Health Care Development Division   (Costa Rica)

^p HELSINKI UNIVERSITY CENTRAL HOSPITAL   (Finland)

^q NORWEGIAN KNOWLEDGE CENTRE FOR THE HEALTH SERVICES   (Norway)

^r INNLANDET HOSPITAL TRUST   (Norway)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CASE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; LITERATURE; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL BIAS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATA ACCURACY; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84956929414     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009368     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Fleming TR. Addressing missing data in clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 2011;154:113-17.
2. Altman DG. Missing outcomes: addressing the dilemma. Open Med 2009;3:e21-3.
3. Akl EA, Briel M, You JJ, et al. Potential impact on estimated treatment effects of information lost to follow-up in randomised controlled trials (LOST-IT): systematic review. BMJ 2012;344:e2809.
4. The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Secondary Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. 2011. http://www. cochrane-handbook.org
5. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al., PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:264-9, W64.
6. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence-study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:407-15.
7. Hopewell S, Boutron I, Altman DG, et al. Incorporation of assessments of risk of bias of primary studies in systematic reviews of randomised trials: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2013;3:e003342.
8. Moseley AM, Elkins MR, Herbert RD, et al. Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:1021-30.
9. Alonso-Coello P, Carrasco-Labra A, Brignardello-Petersen R, et al. A methodological survey of the analysis, reporting and interpretation of Absolute Risk ReductiOn in Systematic RevieWs (ARROW): a study protocol. Syst Rev 2013;2:113.
10. Wilczynski NL, McKibbon KA, Haynes RB. Sensitive Clinical Queries retrieved relevant systematic reviews as well as primary studies: an analytic survey. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1341-9.
11. Akl EA, Briel M, You JJ, et al. LOST to follow-up Information in Trials (LOST-IT): a protocol on the potential impact. Trials 2009;10:40.
12. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:1013-20.
13. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:383-94.
14. Akl EA, Johnston BC, Alonso-Coello P, et al. Addressing dichotomous data for participants excluded from trial analysis: a guide for systematic reviewers. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e57132.
15. Ebrahim S, Johnston BC, Akl EA, et al. Addressing continuous data measured with different instruments for participants excluded from trial analysis: a guide for systematic reviewers. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:560-70.
16. Ebrahim S, Akl EA, Mustafa RA, et al. Addressing continuous data for participants excluded from trial analysis: a guide for systematic reviewers. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:1014-21.e1.
17. White IR, Higgins JP, Wood AM. Allowing for uncertainty due to missing data in meta-analysis-part 1: two-stage methods. Stat Med 2008;27:711-27.
18. White IR, Welton NJ, Wood AM, et al. Allowing for uncertainty due to missing data in meta-analysis-part 2: hierarchical models. Stat Med 2008;27:728-45.
19. Gamble C, Hollis S. Uncertainty method improved on best-worst case analysis in a binary meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:579-88.
20. Higgins JP, White IR, Wood AM. Imputation methods for missing outcome data in meta-analysis of clinical trials. Clin Trials 2008;5:225-39.
21. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c869.