Lara A Kahale1, Batoul Diab1, Romina Brignardello-Petersen2, Arnav Agarwal3, Reem A Mustafa4, Joey Kwong5, Ignacio Neumann6, Ling Li7, Luciane Cruz Lopes8, Matthias Briel9, Jason W Busse10, Alfonso Iorio11, Per Olav Vandvik12, Paul Elias Alexander13, Gordon Guyatt11, Elie A Akl14. 1. Clinical Epidemiology Unit, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon. 2. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Evidence Based Dentistry Unit, Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile. 3. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Medicine, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA; Department of Biomedical and Health Informatics, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA. 5. JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. 6. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile. 7. Clinical Research and Evaluation Unit, Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 8. Pharmaceutical Sciences Post Graduate Course, University of Sorocaba, UNISO, Sorocaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 9. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Spitalstrasse 12 4031, Basel, Switzerland. 10. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada; The Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. 11. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. 12. Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway; Department of Medicine, Innlandet Hospital Trust, Gjøvik, Norway. 13. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 14. Clinical Epidemiology Unit, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: ea32@aub.edu.lb.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe how systematic review authors report and address categories of participants with potential missing outcome data of trial participants. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Methodological survey of systematic reviews reporting a group-level meta-analysis. RESULTS: We included a random sample of 50 Cochrane and 50 non-Cochrane systematic reviews. Of these, 25 reported in their methods section a plan to consider at least one of the 10 categories of missing outcome data; 42 reported in their results, data for at least one category of missing data. The most reported category in the methods and results sections was "unexplained loss to follow-up" (n = 34 in methods section and n = 6 in the results section). Only 19 reported a method to handle missing data in their primary analyses, which was most often complete case analysis. Few reviews (n = 9) reported in the methods section conducting sensitivity analysis to judge risk of bias associated with missing outcome data at the level of the meta-analysis; and only five of them presented the results of these analyses in the results section. CONCLUSION: Most systematic reviews do not explicitly report sufficient information on categories of trial participants with potential missing outcome data or address missing data in their primary analyses.
OBJECTIVES: To describe how systematic review authors report and address categories of participants with potential missing outcome data of trial participants. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Methodological survey of systematic reviews reporting a group-level meta-analysis. RESULTS: We included a random sample of 50 Cochrane and 50 non-Cochrane systematic reviews. Of these, 25 reported in their methods section a plan to consider at least one of the 10 categories of missing outcome data; 42 reported in their results, data for at least one category of missing data. The most reported category in the methods and results sections was "unexplained loss to follow-up" (n = 34 in methods section and n = 6 in the results section). Only 19 reported a method to handle missing data in their primary analyses, which was most often complete case analysis. Few reviews (n = 9) reported in the methods section conducting sensitivity analysis to judge risk of bias associated with missing outcome data at the level of the meta-analysis; and only five of them presented the results of these analyses in the results section. CONCLUSION: Most systematic reviews do not explicitly report sufficient information on categories of trial participants with potential missing outcome data or address missing data in their primary analyses.
Authors: Lara A Kahale; Assem M Khamis; Batoul Diab; Yaping Chang; Luciane Cruz Lopes; Arnav Agarwal; Ling Li; Reem A Mustafa; Serge Koujanian; Reem Waziry; Jason W Busse; Abeer Dakik; Lotty Hooft; Gordon H Guyatt; Rob J P M Scholten; Elie A Akl Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2020-05-27 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Lawrence Mbuagbaw; Daeria O Lawson; Livia Puljak; David B Allison; Lehana Thabane Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2020-09-07 Impact factor: 4.615