EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,869,633
Abstracts:
29,686,251
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews: a methodological survey



Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews: a methodological survey



Bmj Open 5(9): E009368-E009368



To describe how systematic reviewers are reporting missing data for dichotomous outcomes, handling them in the analysis and assessing the risk of associated bias. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for systematic reviews of randomised trials published in 2010, and reporting a meta-analysis of a dichotomous outcome. We randomly selected 98 Cochrane and 104 non-Cochrane systematic reviews. Teams of 2 reviewers selected eligible studies and abstracted data independently and in duplicate using standardised, piloted forms with accompanying instructions. We conducted regression analyses to explore factors associated with using complete case analysis and with judging the risk of bias associated with missing participant data. Of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, 47% and 7% (p<0.0001), respectively, reported on the number of participants with missing data, and 41% and 9% reported a plan for handling missing categorical data. The 2 most reported approaches for handling missing data were complete case analysis (8.5%, out of the 202 reviews) and assuming no participants with missing data had the event (4%). The use of complete case analysis was associated only with Cochrane reviews (relative to non-Cochrane: OR=7.25; 95% CI 1.58 to 33.3, p=0.01). 65% of reviews assessed risk of bias associated with missing data; this was associated with Cochrane reviews (relative to non-Cochrane: OR=6.63; 95% CI 2.50 to 17.57, p=0.0001), and the use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology (OR=5.02; 95% CI 1.02 to 24.75, p=0.047). Though Cochrane reviews are somewhat less problematic, most Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews fail to adequately report and handle missing data, potentially resulting in misleading judgements regarding risk of bias.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 058747236

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 26423858

DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009368



Related references

Reporting missing participant data in randomised trials: systematic survey of the methodological literature and a proposed guide. Bmj Open 5(12): E008431-E008431, 2016

A systematic survey on reporting and methods for handling missing participant data for continuous outcomes in randomized controlled trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 88: 57-66, 2017

Impact of missing participant data for dichotomous outcomes on pooled effect estimates in systematic reviews: a protocol for a methodological study. Systematic Reviews 3(): 137-137, 2015

Reporting and handling missing outcome data in mental health: a systematic review of Cochrane systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Research Synthesis Methods 6(2): 175-187, 2016

GRADE guidelines 17: assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant outcome data in a body of evidence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 87: 14-22, 2017

Systematic reviews do not adequately report, or address missing outcome data in their analyses: a methodological survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology: -, 2018

A systematic survey shows that reporting and handling of missing outcome data in networks of interventions is poor. Bmc Medical Research Methodology 18(1): 115-115, 2018

A methodological survey of the analysis, reporting and interpretation of Absolute Risk ReductiOn in systematic revieWs (ARROW): a study protocol. Systematic Reviews 2(): 113-113, 2014

Outcome reporting bias in trials: a methodological approach for assessment and adjustment in systematic reviews. Bmj 362: K3802-K3802, 2018

Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study. Systematic Reviews 6(1): 117-117, 2018

Conducting systematic reviews of intervention questions II: Relevance screening, data extraction, assessing risk of bias, presenting the results and interpreting the findings. Zoonoses and Public Health 61 Suppl 1: 39-51, 2015

Risk of bias reporting in Cochrane systematic reviews. International Journal of Nursing Practice 21(5): 683-686, 2014

A systematic survey of the methods literature on the reporting quality and optimal methods of handling participants with missing outcome data for continuous outcomes in randomized controlled trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 88: 67-80, 2017

Methodological quality and outcome of systematic reviews reporting on orthopaedic treatment for Class III malocclusion: Overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Orthodontics 43(2): 89-89, 2018

Methodological quality and outcome of systematic reviews reporting on orthopaedic treatment for class III malocclusion: Overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Orthodontics 43(2): 102-120, 2018