A systematic survey on reporting and methods for handling missing participant data for continuous outcomes in randomized controlled trials

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Zhang, Yuqing
Data de Publicação: 2017
Outros Autores: Florez, Ivan D., Colunga Lozano, Luis E., Aloweni, Fazila Abu Bakar, Kennedy, Sean Alexander, Li, Aihua, Craigie, Samantha, Zhang, Shiyuan, Agarwal, Arnav, Lopes, Lucian C. [UNESP], Devji, Tahira, Wiercioch, Wojtek, Riva, John J., Wang, Mengxiao, Jin, Xuejing, Fei, Yutong, Alexander, Paul, Morgano, Gian Paolo, Zhang, Yuan, Carrasco-Labra, Alonso, Kahale, Lara A., Akl, Elie A., Schunemann, Holger J., Thabane, Lehana, Guyatt, Gordon H.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.017
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/159845
Resumo: Objective: To assess analytic approaches randomized controlled trial (RCT) authors use to address missing participant data (MPD) for patient-important continuous outcomes. Study Design and Setting: We conducted a systematic survey of RCTs published in 2014 in the core clinical journals that reported at least one patient-important outcome analyzed as a continuous variable. Results: Among 200 studies, 187 (93.5%) trials explicitly reported whether MPD occurred. In the 163 (81.5%) trials that reported the occurrence of MPD, the median and interquartile ranges of the percentage of participants with MPD were 11.4% (2.5%-22.6%).Among the 147 trials in which authors made clear their analytical approach to MPD, the approaches chosen included available data only (109, 67%); mixed-effect models (10, 6.1%); multiple imputation (9, 4.5%); and last observation carried forward (9, 4.5). Of the 163 studies reporting MPD, 16 (9.8%) conducted sensitivity analyses examining the impact of the MPD and (18, 11.1%) discussed the risk of bias associated with MPD. Conclusion: RCTs reporting continuous outcomes typically have over 10% of participant data missing. Most RCTs failed to use optimal analytic methods, and very few conducted sensitivity analyses addressing the possible impact of MPD or commented on how MPD might influence risk of bias. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
id UNSP_15b1e4909284b6f4d82bbe810591091c
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/159845
network_acronym_str UNSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository_id_str 2946
spelling A systematic survey on reporting and methods for handling missing participant data for continuous outcomes in randomized controlled trialsMissing participant dataContinuous outcomeAnalytic approachesMPDRandomized controlled trialsLost to follow-upObjective: To assess analytic approaches randomized controlled trial (RCT) authors use to address missing participant data (MPD) for patient-important continuous outcomes. Study Design and Setting: We conducted a systematic survey of RCTs published in 2014 in the core clinical journals that reported at least one patient-important outcome analyzed as a continuous variable. Results: Among 200 studies, 187 (93.5%) trials explicitly reported whether MPD occurred. In the 163 (81.5%) trials that reported the occurrence of MPD, the median and interquartile ranges of the percentage of participants with MPD were 11.4% (2.5%-22.6%).Among the 147 trials in which authors made clear their analytical approach to MPD, the approaches chosen included available data only (109, 67%); mixed-effect models (10, 6.1%); multiple imputation (9, 4.5%); and last observation carried forward (9, 4.5). Of the 163 studies reporting MPD, 16 (9.8%) conducted sensitivity analyses examining the impact of the MPD and (18, 11.1%) discussed the risk of bias associated with MPD. Conclusion: RCTs reporting continuous outcomes typically have over 10% of participant data missing. Most RCTs failed to use optimal analytic methods, and very few conducted sensitivity analyses addressing the possible impact of MPD or commented on how MPD might influence risk of bias. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.McMaster Univ, Dept Hlth Res Methods Evidence & Impact, Hamilton, ON, CanadaChina Acad Chinese Med Sci, Guanganmen Hosp, Beijing, Peoples R ChinaUniv Antioquia, Dept Pediat, Medellin, ColombiaHosp Angeles del Carmen, Dept Crit Care, Guadalajara, Jalisco, MexicoSingapore Gen Hosp, Nursing Div, Singapore, SingaporeUniv Toronto, Dept Diagnost Radiol, Toronto, ON, CanadaMichael G DeGroote Natl Pain Ctr, Dept Anesthesiol, Hamilton, ON, CanadaGSK, Med Affairs, Hlth Econ & Outcomes Res, Mississauga, ON, CanadaUniv Toronto, Fac Med, Toronto, ON, CanadaUniv Sorocaba, Dept Pharmaceut Sci, Sao Paulo, BrazilUniv Estadual Paulista, Dept Pharmaceut Sci, Sao Paulo, BrazilMcMaster Univ, Dept Family Med, Hamilton, ON, CanadaBeijing Univ Chinese Med, Ctr Evidence Based Chinese Med, Chaoyang Qu, Peoples R ChinaUniv Chile, Evidence Based Dent Unit, Santiago, Region Metropol, ChileUniv Chile, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Santiago, Region Metropol, ChileAmer Univ Beirut, Dept Internal Med, Beirut, LebanonDept Med, Hamilton, ON, CanadaDept Hlth Res Methods Evidence & Impact, Hamilton, ON, CanadaUniv Estadual Paulista, Dept Pharmaceut Sci, Sao Paulo, BrazilElsevier B.V.McMaster UnivChina Acad Chinese Med SciUniv AntioquiaHosp Angeles del CarmenSingapore Gen HospUniv TorontoMichael G DeGroote Natl Pain CtrGSKUniv SorocabaUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)Beijing Univ Chinese MedUniv ChileAmer Univ BeirutDept MedDept Hlth Res Methods Evidence & ImpactZhang, YuqingFlorez, Ivan D.Colunga Lozano, Luis E.Aloweni, Fazila Abu BakarKennedy, Sean AlexanderLi, AihuaCraigie, SamanthaZhang, ShiyuanAgarwal, ArnavLopes, Lucian C. [UNESP]Devji, TahiraWiercioch, WojtekRiva, John J.Wang, MengxiaoJin, XuejingFei, YutongAlexander, PaulMorgano, Gian PaoloZhang, YuanCarrasco-Labra, AlonsoKahale, Lara A.Akl, Elie A.Schunemann, Holger J.Thabane, LehanaGuyatt, Gordon H.2018-11-26T15:45:27Z2018-11-26T15:45:27Z2017-08-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/article57-66application/pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.017Journal Of Clinical Epidemiology. New York: Elsevier Science Inc, v. 88, p. 57-66, 2017.0895-4356http://hdl.handle.net/11449/15984510.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.017WOS:000411916500010WOS000411916500010.pdfWeb of Sciencereponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengJournal Of Clinical Epidemiology2,862info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2023-12-17T06:17:12Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/159845Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462024-08-05T20:32:47.607546Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv A systematic survey on reporting and methods for handling missing participant data for continuous outcomes in randomized controlled trials
title A systematic survey on reporting and methods for handling missing participant data for continuous outcomes in randomized controlled trials
spellingShingle A systematic survey on reporting and methods for handling missing participant data for continuous outcomes in randomized controlled trials
Zhang, Yuqing
Missing participant data
Continuous outcome
Analytic approaches
MPD
Randomized controlled trials
Lost to follow-up
title_short A systematic survey on reporting and methods for handling missing participant data for continuous outcomes in randomized controlled trials
title_full A systematic survey on reporting and methods for handling missing participant data for continuous outcomes in randomized controlled trials
title_fullStr A systematic survey on reporting and methods for handling missing participant data for continuous outcomes in randomized controlled trials
title_full_unstemmed A systematic survey on reporting and methods for handling missing participant data for continuous outcomes in randomized controlled trials
title_sort A systematic survey on reporting and methods for handling missing participant data for continuous outcomes in randomized controlled trials
author Zhang, Yuqing
author_facet Zhang, Yuqing
Florez, Ivan D.
Colunga Lozano, Luis E.
Aloweni, Fazila Abu Bakar
Kennedy, Sean Alexander
Li, Aihua
Craigie, Samantha
Zhang, Shiyuan
Agarwal, Arnav
Lopes, Lucian C. [UNESP]
Devji, Tahira
Wiercioch, Wojtek
Riva, John J.
Wang, Mengxiao
Jin, Xuejing
Fei, Yutong
Alexander, Paul
Morgano, Gian Paolo
Zhang, Yuan
Carrasco-Labra, Alonso
Kahale, Lara A.
Akl, Elie A.
Schunemann, Holger J.
Thabane, Lehana
Guyatt, Gordon H.
author_role author
author2 Florez, Ivan D.
Colunga Lozano, Luis E.
Aloweni, Fazila Abu Bakar
Kennedy, Sean Alexander
Li, Aihua
Craigie, Samantha
Zhang, Shiyuan
Agarwal, Arnav
Lopes, Lucian C. [UNESP]
Devji, Tahira
Wiercioch, Wojtek
Riva, John J.
Wang, Mengxiao
Jin, Xuejing
Fei, Yutong
Alexander, Paul
Morgano, Gian Paolo
Zhang, Yuan
Carrasco-Labra, Alonso
Kahale, Lara A.
Akl, Elie A.
Schunemann, Holger J.
Thabane, Lehana
Guyatt, Gordon H.
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv McMaster Univ
China Acad Chinese Med Sci
Univ Antioquia
Hosp Angeles del Carmen
Singapore Gen Hosp
Univ Toronto
Michael G DeGroote Natl Pain Ctr
GSK
Univ Sorocaba
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Beijing Univ Chinese Med
Univ Chile
Amer Univ Beirut
Dept Med
Dept Hlth Res Methods Evidence & Impact
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Zhang, Yuqing
Florez, Ivan D.
Colunga Lozano, Luis E.
Aloweni, Fazila Abu Bakar
Kennedy, Sean Alexander
Li, Aihua
Craigie, Samantha
Zhang, Shiyuan
Agarwal, Arnav
Lopes, Lucian C. [UNESP]
Devji, Tahira
Wiercioch, Wojtek
Riva, John J.
Wang, Mengxiao
Jin, Xuejing
Fei, Yutong
Alexander, Paul
Morgano, Gian Paolo
Zhang, Yuan
Carrasco-Labra, Alonso
Kahale, Lara A.
Akl, Elie A.
Schunemann, Holger J.
Thabane, Lehana
Guyatt, Gordon H.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Missing participant data
Continuous outcome
Analytic approaches
MPD
Randomized controlled trials
Lost to follow-up
topic Missing participant data
Continuous outcome
Analytic approaches
MPD
Randomized controlled trials
Lost to follow-up
description Objective: To assess analytic approaches randomized controlled trial (RCT) authors use to address missing participant data (MPD) for patient-important continuous outcomes. Study Design and Setting: We conducted a systematic survey of RCTs published in 2014 in the core clinical journals that reported at least one patient-important outcome analyzed as a continuous variable. Results: Among 200 studies, 187 (93.5%) trials explicitly reported whether MPD occurred. In the 163 (81.5%) trials that reported the occurrence of MPD, the median and interquartile ranges of the percentage of participants with MPD were 11.4% (2.5%-22.6%).Among the 147 trials in which authors made clear their analytical approach to MPD, the approaches chosen included available data only (109, 67%); mixed-effect models (10, 6.1%); multiple imputation (9, 4.5%); and last observation carried forward (9, 4.5). Of the 163 studies reporting MPD, 16 (9.8%) conducted sensitivity analyses examining the impact of the MPD and (18, 11.1%) discussed the risk of bias associated with MPD. Conclusion: RCTs reporting continuous outcomes typically have over 10% of participant data missing. Most RCTs failed to use optimal analytic methods, and very few conducted sensitivity analyses addressing the possible impact of MPD or commented on how MPD might influence risk of bias. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017-08-01
2018-11-26T15:45:27Z
2018-11-26T15:45:27Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.017
Journal Of Clinical Epidemiology. New York: Elsevier Science Inc, v. 88, p. 57-66, 2017.
0895-4356
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/159845
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.017
WOS:000411916500010
WOS000411916500010.pdf
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.017
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/159845
identifier_str_mv Journal Of Clinical Epidemiology. New York: Elsevier Science Inc, v. 88, p. 57-66, 2017.
0895-4356
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.017
WOS:000411916500010
WOS000411916500010.pdf
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Journal Of Clinical Epidemiology
2,862
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv 57-66
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier B.V.
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier B.V.
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Web of Science
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1808129217665171456