Systematic reviews do not adequately report or address missing outcome data in their analyses: a methodological survey

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 99, Issue , 2018, Pages 14-23

  Kahale, Lara A ^a   Diab, Batoul ^a   Brignardello Petersen, Romina ^b,c   Agarwal, Arnav ^b,d   Mustafa, Reem A ^b,e,f   Kwong, Joey ^g   Neumann, Ignacio ^b,h   Li, Ling ⁱ   Lopes, Luciane Cruz ^j   Briel, Matthias ^b,k   Busse, Jason W ^b,l   Iorio, Alfonso ^b   Vandvik, Per Olav ^m,n   Alexander, Paul Elias ^b   Guyatt, Gordon ^b   Akl, Elie A ^a,b  

^a AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT   (Lebanon)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CHILE   (Chile)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI KANSAS CITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI KANSAS CITY   (United States)

^g CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^h PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE CHILE   (Chile)

ⁱ SICHUAN UNIVERSITY   (China)

^j UNIVERSITY OF SOROCABA   (Brazil)

^k UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL BASEL   (Switzerland)

^l MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

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

ⁿ INNLANDET HOSPITAL TRUST   (Norway)

more..

Author keywords

Imputation; Meta analysis; Missing outcome data; Risk of bias; Systematic reviews; Trials

Indexed keywords

DATA ANALYSIS; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; MISSING OUTCOME DATA; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL BIAS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PROCEDURES; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

BIAS; DATA ACCURACY; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85044471527     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.016     Document Type: Review

References (23)

1. Akl, E.A., Briel, M., You, J.J., Sun, X., Johnston, B.C., Busse, J.W., et al. Potential impact on estimated treatment effects of information lost to follow-up in randomised controlled trials (LOST-IT): systematic review. BMJ, 344, 2012, e2809.
2. Turner, N.L., Dias, S., Ades, A.E., Welton, N.J., A Bayesian framework to account for uncertainty due to missing binary outcome data in pairwise meta-analysis. Stat Med 34 (2015), 2062–2080.
3. Higgins, J.P., White, I.R., Wood, A.M., Imputation methods for missing outcome data in meta-analysis of clinical trials. Clin Trials 5 (2008), 225–239.
4. Guyatt, G.H., Ebrahim, S., Alonso-Coello, P., Johnston, B.C., Mathioudakis, A.G., Briel, M., et al. GRADE guidelines 17: assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant outcome data in a body of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 87 (2017), 14–22.
5. Akl, E.A., Kahale, L.A., Agoritsas, T., Brignardello-Petersen, R., Busse, J.W., Carrasco-Labra, A., et al. Handling trial participants with missing outcome data when conducting a meta-analysis: a systematic survey of proposed approaches. Syst Rev, 4, 2015, 98.
6. Akl, E.A., Carrasco-Labra, A., Brignardello-Petersen, R., Neumann, I., Johnston, B.C., Sun, X., et al. Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews: a methodological survey. BMJ Open, 5(9), 2015, e009368.
7. Spineli, L.M., Pandis, N., Salanti, G., Reporting and handling missing outcome data in mental health: a systematic review of Cochrane systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Res Synth Methods 6 (2015), 175–187.
8. Akl, E.A., Kahale, L.A., Agarwal, A., Al-Matari, N., Ebrahim, S., Alexander, P.E., et al. Impact of missing participant data for dichotomous outcomes on pooled effect estimates in systematic reviews: a protocol for a methodological study. Syst Rev, 3, 2014, 137.
9. White, I.R., Higgins, J.P., Wood, A.M., Allowing for uncertainty due to missing data in meta-analysis–part 1: two-stage methods. Stat Med 27 (2008), 711–727.
10. White, I.R., et al. Allowing for uncertainty due to missing data in meta-analysis—Part 2: hierarchical models. Stat Med 27 (2008), 728–745.
11. Gamble, C., Hollis, S., Uncertainty method improved on best-worst case analysis in a binary meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 58 (2005), 579–588.
12. Mavridis, D., Chaimani, A., Efthimiou, O., Leucht, S., Salanti, G., Addressing missing outcome data in meta-analysis. Evid Based Ment Health 17:3 (2014), 85–89.
13. Landis, J.R., Koch, G.G., The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33 (1977), 159–174.
14. Ebrahim, S., Akl, E.A., Mustafa, R.A., Sun, X., Walter, S.D., Heels-Ansdell, D., et al. Addressing continuous data for participants excluded from trial analysis: a guide for systematic reviewers. J Clin Epidemiol 66 (2013), 1014–1021.e1.
15. Hopewell, S., Boutron, I., Altman, D.G., Ravaud, P., Incorporation of assessments of risk of bias of primary studies in systematic reviews of randomised trials: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 3(8), 2013, e003342.
16. Moseley, A.M., Elkins, M.R., Herbert, R.D., Maher, C.G., Sherrington, C., Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy. J Clin Epidemiol 62 (2009), 1021–1030.
17. Wahlbeck, K., Tuunainen, A., Ahokas, A., Leucht, S., Dropout rates in randomised antipsychotic drug trials. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 155:3 (2001), 230–233.
18. Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P., et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLos Med, 6(7), 2009, e1000100.
19. Higgins, J., Green, S., Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. [updated March 2011], 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration Available at www.handbook.cochrane.org.
20. Mavridis, D., White, I.R., Higgins, J.P., Cipriani, A., Salanti, G., Allowing for uncertainty due to missing continuous outcome data in pairwise and network meta-analysis. Stat Med 34 (2015), 721–741.
21. R Development Core Team, R: a language and environment for statistical computing. 2010, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria Available at https://www.r-project.org/.
22. StataCorp, Stata statistical software: release 15. 2017, StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX.
23. Alshurafa, M., Briel, M., Akl, E.A., Haines, T., Moayyedi, P., Gentles, S.J., et al. Inconsistent definitions for intention-to-treat in relation to missing outcome data: systematic review of the methods literature. PLoS One, 7, 2012, e49163.