Yuqing Zhang1, Akram Alyass2, Thuva Vanniyasingam2, Behnam Sadeghirad3, Iván D Flórez4, Sathish Chandra Pichika2, Sean Alexander Kennedy5, Ulviya Abdulkarimova6, Yuan Zhang2, Tzvia Iljon6, Gian Paolo Morgano2, Luis E Colunga Lozano7, Fazila Abu Bakar Aloweni8, Luciane C Lopes9, Juan José Yepes-Nuñez4, Yutong Fei10, Li Wang11, Lara A Kahale12, David Meyre13, Elie A Akl14, Lehana Thabane2, Gordon H Guyatt15. 1. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Guang'anmen Hospital China Academy of Chinese Medical Science, Xicheng District, Beijing, China. 2. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 3. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Regional Knowledge Hub and WHO Collaborating Centre for HIV Surveillance, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran. 4. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Pediatrics, University of Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia. 5. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 6. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 7. Department of Critical Care, Hospital Angeles del Carmen, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico. 8. Nursing Division, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore. 9. Department of Pharmaceutical science, Universidade de Sorocaba, São Paulo, Brazil; Department of Pharmaceutical science, Universidade Estadual Paulista "Julio de Mesquita Filho", São Paulo, Brazil. 10. Center for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Chaoyang Qu, China. 11. Department of Anesthesiology, Michael G. DeGroote National Pain Centre, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 12. Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, Riad El-Solh, Beirut, Lebanon. 13. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 14. Clinical Epidemiology Unit and Center for Systematic Reviews in Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Riad El-Solh, Beirut, Lebanon. 15. Department of Medicine and Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: guyatt@mcmaster.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct (1) a systematic survey of the reporting quality of simulation studies dealing with how to handle missing participant data (MPD) in randomized control trials and (2) summarize the findings of these studies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We included simulation studies comparing statistical methods dealing with continuous MPD in randomized controlled trials addressing bias, precision, coverage, accuracy, power, type-I error, and overall ranking. For the reporting of simulation studies, we adapted previously developed criteria for reporting quality and applied them to eligible studies. RESULTS: Of 16,446 identified citations, the 60 eligible generally had important limitations in reporting, particularly in reporting simulation procedures. Of the 60 studies, 47 addressed ignorable and 32 addressed nonignorable data. For ignorable missing data, mixed model was most frequently the best on overall ranking (9 times best, 34.6% of times tested) and bias (10, 55.6%). Multiple imputation was also performed well. For nonignorable data, mixed model was most frequently the best on overall ranking (7, 46.7%) and bias (8, 57.1%). Mixed model performance varied on other criteria. Last observation carried forward (LOCF) was very seldom the best performing, and for nonignorable MPD frequently the worst. CONCLUSION: Simulation studies addressing methods to deal with MPD suffered from serious limitations. The mixed model approach was superior to other methods in terms of overall performance and bias. LOCF performed worst.
OBJECTIVE: To conduct (1) a systematic survey of the reporting quality of simulation studies dealing with how to handle missing participant data (MPD) in randomized control trials and (2) summarize the findings of these studies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We included simulation studies comparing statistical methods dealing with continuous MPD in randomized controlled trials addressing bias, precision, coverage, accuracy, power, type-I error, and overall ranking. For the reporting of simulation studies, we adapted previously developed criteria for reporting quality and applied them to eligible studies. RESULTS: Of 16,446 identified citations, the 60 eligible generally had important limitations in reporting, particularly in reporting simulation procedures. Of the 60 studies, 47 addressed ignorable and 32 addressed nonignorable data. For ignorable missing data, mixed model was most frequently the best on overall ranking (9 times best, 34.6% of times tested) and bias (10, 55.6%). Multiple imputation was also performed well. For nonignorable data, mixed model was most frequently the best on overall ranking (7, 46.7%) and bias (8, 57.1%). Mixed model performance varied on other criteria. Last observation carried forward (LOCF) was very seldom the best performing, and for nonignorable MPD frequently the worst. CONCLUSION: Simulation studies addressing methods to deal with MPD suffered from serious limitations. The mixed model approach was superior to other methods in terms of overall performance and bias. LOCF performed worst.
Authors: Lynette Keyes-Elstein; Ashley Pinckney; Ellen Goldmuntz; Beverly Welch; Jennifer M Franks; Viktor Martyanov; Tammara A Wood; Leslie Crofford; Maureen Mayes; Peter McSweeney; Richard Nash; George Georges; M E Csuka; Robert Simms; Daniel Furst; Dinesh Khanna; E William St Clair; Michael L Whitfield; Keith M Sullivan Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2021-09-17 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Vincent Issac Lau; Deborah J Cook; Robert Fowler; Bram Rochwerg; Jennie Johnstone; François Lauzier; John C Marshall; John Basmaji; Diane Heels-Ansdell; Lehana Thabane; Feng Xie Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-06-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Lauren Arundell; Bronwyn Sudholz; Megan Teychenne; Jo Salmon; Brooke Hayward; Genevieve N Healy; Anna Timperio Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Kim D Anderson; James R Wilson; Radha Korupolu; Jacqueline Pierce; James M Bowen; Daria O'Reilly; Naaz Kapadia; Milos R Popovic; Lehana Thabane; Kristin E Musselman Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 2.692