Advanced search
Publication Cover
Clinical Epidemiology Volume 12, 2020 - Issue
Submit an article Journal homepage
119
Views
2
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Methodology

Meta-Analyses Proved Inconsistent in How Missing Data Were Handled Across Their Included Primary Trials: A Methodological Survey

Lara A Kahale1 Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, LebanonORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-4466-0556
ORCID Icon,
Assem M Khamis2 Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UKORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-5567-7065
ORCID Icon,
Batoul Diab1 Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
,
Yaping Chang3 Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, CanadaORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9148-4877
ORCID Icon,
Luciane Cruz Lopes4 Pharmaceutical Sciences Post Graduate Course, University of Sorocaba, UNISO, Sorocaba, Sao Paulo, BrazilORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-3684-3275
ORCID Icon,
Arnav Agarwal3 Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada;5 Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-0931-7851
ORCID Icon,
Ling Li6 Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People’s Republic of ChinaORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-7689-1856
ORCID Icon,
Reem A Mustafa3 Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada;7 Departments of Medicine and Biomedical & Health Informatics, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA
,
Serge Koujanian8 Department of Evaluative Clinical Sciences, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
,
Reem Waziry9 Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
,
Jason W Busse3 Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada;10 Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada;11 The Michael G. DeGroote National Pain Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada;12 Chronic Pain Centre of Excellence for Canadian Veterans, Hamilton, CanadaORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-0178-8712
ORCID Icon,
Abeer Dakik1 Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
,
Lotty Hooft13 Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
,
Gordon H Guyatt3 Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada;14 Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
,
Rob J P M Scholten13 Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
&
Elie A Akl1 Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon;3 Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, CanadaCorrespondence[email protected]
ORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-3444-8618
ORCID Icon show all
Pages 527-535 | Published online: 27 May 2020

References

  • Kahale LA, Diab B, Khamis AM, et al. Potentially missing data was considerably more frequent than definitely missing data in randomized controlled trials: a methodological survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;106:18–31.30300676
  • Akl EA, Kahale LA, Ebrahim S, et al. Three challenges described for identifying participants with missing data in trials reports, and potential solutions suggested to systematic reviewers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;76:147–154. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.02.02226944294
  • Hussain JA, White IR, Langan D, et al. Missing data in randomised controlled trials evaluating palliative interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2016;387:S53. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)00440-2
  • Adewuyi TE, MacLennan G, Cook JA. Non-compliance with randomised allocation and missing outcome data in randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical interventions: a systematic review. BMC Res Notes. 2015;8:403. doi:10.1186/s13104-015-1364-926336099
  • Akl EA, Shawwa K, Kahale LA, et al. Reporting missing participant data in randomised trials: systematic survey of the methodological literature and a proposed guide. BMJ Open. 2015;5(12):e008431. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008431
  • Bell ML, Fiero M, Horton NJ, et al. Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):118. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-11825407057
  • Fielding S, Maclennan G, Cook JA, et al. A review of RCTs in four medical journals to assess the use of imputation to overcome missing data in quality of life outcomes. Trials. 2008;9(1):51. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-9-5118694492
  • Fielding S, Ogbuagu A, Sivasubramaniam S, et al. Reporting and dealing with missing quality of life data in RCTs: has the picture changed in the last decade? Qual Life Res. 2016;25(12):2977–2983. doi:10.1007/s11136-016-1411-627650288
  • Fiero MH, Huang S, Oren E, et al. Statistical analysis and handling of missing data in cluster randomized trials: a systematic review. Trials. 2016;17(1):72. doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1201-z26862034
  • Gewandter JS, McDermott MP, McKeown A, et al. Reporting of missing data and methods used to accommodate them in recent analgesic clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review and recommendations. Pain. 2014;155(9):1871–1877. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2014.06.01824993384
  • Karlson CW, Rapoff MA. Attrition in randomized controlled trials for pediatric chronic conditions. J Pediatr Psychol. 2009;34(7):782–793. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsn12219064607
  • Masconi KL, Matsha TE, Echouffo-Tcheugui JB, et al. Reporting and handling of missing data in predictive research for prevalent undiagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. EPMA J. 2015;6(1):7. doi:10.1186/s13167-015-0028-025829972
  • Spineli LM. Missing binary data extraction challenges from cochrane reviews in mental health and Campbell reviews with implications for empirical research. Res Synth Methods. 2017;8(4):514–525. doi:10.1002/jrsm.126828961395
  • Wahlbeck K, Tuunainen A, Ahokas A, et al. Dropout rates in randomised antipsychotic drug trials. Psychopharmacology. 2001;155(3):230–233. doi:10.1007/s00213010071111432684
  • Wood AM, White IR, Thompson SG. Are missing outcome data adequately handled? A review of published randomized controlled trials in major medical journals. Clin Trials. 2004;1(4):368–376. doi:10.1191/1740774504cn032oa16279275
  • Ibrahim F, Tom BDM, Scott DL, et al. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials in rheumatoid arthritis: the reporting and handling of missing data in composite outcomes. Trials. 2016;17(1):272. doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1402-527255212
  • Kahale LADB, Brignardello-Petersen R, Agarwal A, et al. Systematic reviews do not adequately report, or address missing outcome data in their analyses: a methodological survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.016
  • Lafuente‐Lafuente C, Valembois L, Bergmann JF, et al. Antiarrhythmics for maintaining sinus rhythm after cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;3.
  • Singh S, Saini RK, DiMarco J, et al. Efficacy and safety of sotalol in digitalized patients with chronic atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 1991;68(11):1227–1230. doi:10.1016/0002-9149(91)90200-51951086
  • Singh BN, Singh SN, Reda DJ, et al. Amiodarone versus sotalol for atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(18):1861–1872. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa04170515872201
  • Akl EA, Kahale LA, Agarwal A, 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. 2014;3:137. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-13725423894
  • Kahale LA, Guyatt GH, Agoritsas T, et al. A guidance was developed to identify participants with missing outcome data in randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;115:55–63. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.07.00331299357
  • IBM Corp. Released 2013. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
  • Tang H, Hunter T, Hu Y, et al. Cabergoline for preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;2.
  • 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(9):1014–21 e1. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.03.01423774111
  • 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(5):560–570. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.01424613497
  • Sullivan TR, Yelland LN, Lee KJ, et al. Treatment of missing data in follow-up studies of randomised controlled trials: a systematic review of the literature. Clin Trials. 2017;14(4):387–395. doi:10.1177/174077451770331928385071
  • Babic A, Tokalic R, Cunha JAS, et al. Assessments of attrition bias in cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):76. doi:10.1186/s12874-019-0717-930953448
  • Shivasabesan G, Mitra B, O’Reilly GM. Missing data in trauma registries: a systematic review. Injury. 2018;49(9):1641–1647. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2018.03.03529678306
  • Akl EA, Carrasco-Labra A, Brignardello-Petersen R, et al. Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews: a methodological survey. BMJ Open. 2015;5(9):e009368. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009368
  • Akl EA, Kahale LA, Agoritsas T, et al. Handling trial participants with missing outcome data when conducting a meta-analysis: a systematic survey of proposed approaches. Syst Rev. 2015;4:98. doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0083-626202162
  • Khamis AM, El Moheb M, Nicolas J, et al. Several reasons explained the variation in the results of 22 meta-analyses addressing the same question. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;113:147–158. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.05.02331150832
  • 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(4):407–415. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.01721247734
  • Guyatt GH, Ebrahim S, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE guidelines 17: assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant outcome data in a body of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;87:14–22. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.00528529188
  • 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(2):e57132. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.005713223451162
  • White IR, Carpenter J, Horton NJ. Including all individuals is not enough: lessons for intention-to-treat analysis. Clin Trials. 2012;9(4):396–407. doi:10.1177/174077451245009822752633
  • White IR, Higgins JP. Meta-analysis with missing data. Stata J. 2009;9(1):57–69. doi:10.1177/1536867X0900900104
  • White IR, Horton NJ, Carpenter J, et al. Strategy for intention to treat analysis in randomised trials with missing outcome data. BMJ. 2011;342(feb07 1):d40. doi:10.1136/bmj.d4021300711

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.