+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Systematic reviews do not adequately report or address missing outcome data in their analyses: a methodological survey



Systematic reviews do not adequately report or address missing outcome data in their analyses: a methodological survey



Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 99: 14-23



To describe how systematic review authors report and address categories of participants with potential missing outcome data of trial participants. Methodological survey of systematic reviews reporting a group-level meta-analysis. 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. 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.

Please choose payment method:






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

Accession: 065556503

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 29505859

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.016


Related references

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

Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews: a methodological survey. Bmj Open 5(9): E009368, 2016

Evaluation of methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool for the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews). Rofo 184(10): 937-940, 2013

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, 2015

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

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, 2018

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

Methodological quality of systematic reviews of animal studies: a survey of reviews of basic research. Bmc Medical Research Methodology 6: 10, 2006

Analysis of the systematic reviews process in reports of network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review. Bmj 347: F3675-F3675, 2013

Systematic reviews: time to address clinical and policy relevance as well as methodological rigor. Annals of Internal Medicine 147(4): 273-274, 2007

Methodological quality evaluation of systematic reviews or meta-analyses on ERCC1 in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review. Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology 143(11): 2245-2256, 2017

Impact of searching clinical trial registries in systematic reviews of pharmaceutical treatments: methodological systematic review and reanalysis of meta-analyses. Bmj 356: J448, 2017

Are missing data adequately handled in cluster randomised trials? A systematic review and guidelines. Clinical Trials 11(5): 590-600, 2015

Methodological and Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Endodontics. Journal of Endodontics 44(6): 903-913, 2018

Handling trial participants with missing outcome data when conducting a meta-analysis: a systematic survey of proposed approaches. Systematic Reviews 4: 98, 2016