Cargando…

Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals

BACKGROUND: Missing outcome data is a threat to the validity of treatment effect estimates in randomized controlled trials. We aimed to evaluate the extent, handling, and sensitivity analysis of missing data and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in top tier med...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bell, Melanie L, Fiero, Mallorie, Horton, Nicholas J, Hsu, Chiu-Hsieh
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4247714/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25407057
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-118
_version_ 1782346689010466816
author Bell, Melanie L
Fiero, Mallorie
Horton, Nicholas J
Hsu, Chiu-Hsieh
author_facet Bell, Melanie L
Fiero, Mallorie
Horton, Nicholas J
Hsu, Chiu-Hsieh
author_sort Bell, Melanie L
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Missing outcome data is a threat to the validity of treatment effect estimates in randomized controlled trials. We aimed to evaluate the extent, handling, and sensitivity analysis of missing data and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in top tier medical journals, and compare our findings with previous reviews related to missing data and ITT in RCTs. METHODS: Review of RCTs published between July and December 2013 in the BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine, excluding cluster randomized trials and trials whose primary outcome was survival. RESULTS: Of the 77 identified eligible articles, 73 (95%) reported some missing outcome data. The median percentage of participants with a missing outcome was 9% (range 0 – 70%). The most commonly used method to handle missing data in the primary analysis was complete case analysis (33, 45%), while 20 (27%) performed simple imputation, 15 (19%) used model based methods, and 6 (8%) used multiple imputation. 27 (35%) trials with missing data reported a sensitivity analysis. However, most did not alter the assumptions of missing data from the primary analysis. Reports of ITT or modified ITT were found in 52 (85%) trials, with 21 (40%) of them including all randomized participants. A comparison to a review of trials reported in 2001 showed that missing data rates and approaches are similar, but the use of the term ITT has increased, as has the report of sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Missing outcome data continues to be a common problem in RCTs. Definitions of the ITT approach remain inconsistent across trials. A large gap is apparent between statistical methods research related to missing data and use of these methods in application settings, including RCTs in top medical journals. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-118) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4247714
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42477142014-11-30 Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals Bell, Melanie L Fiero, Mallorie Horton, Nicholas J Hsu, Chiu-Hsieh BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Missing outcome data is a threat to the validity of treatment effect estimates in randomized controlled trials. We aimed to evaluate the extent, handling, and sensitivity analysis of missing data and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in top tier medical journals, and compare our findings with previous reviews related to missing data and ITT in RCTs. METHODS: Review of RCTs published between July and December 2013 in the BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine, excluding cluster randomized trials and trials whose primary outcome was survival. RESULTS: Of the 77 identified eligible articles, 73 (95%) reported some missing outcome data. The median percentage of participants with a missing outcome was 9% (range 0 – 70%). The most commonly used method to handle missing data in the primary analysis was complete case analysis (33, 45%), while 20 (27%) performed simple imputation, 15 (19%) used model based methods, and 6 (8%) used multiple imputation. 27 (35%) trials with missing data reported a sensitivity analysis. However, most did not alter the assumptions of missing data from the primary analysis. Reports of ITT or modified ITT were found in 52 (85%) trials, with 21 (40%) of them including all randomized participants. A comparison to a review of trials reported in 2001 showed that missing data rates and approaches are similar, but the use of the term ITT has increased, as has the report of sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Missing outcome data continues to be a common problem in RCTs. Definitions of the ITT approach remain inconsistent across trials. A large gap is apparent between statistical methods research related to missing data and use of these methods in application settings, including RCTs in top medical journals. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-118) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2014-11-19 /pmc/articles/PMC4247714/ /pubmed/25407057 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-118 Text en © Bell et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Bell, Melanie L
Fiero, Mallorie
Horton, Nicholas J
Hsu, Chiu-Hsieh
Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals
title Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals
title_full Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals
title_fullStr Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals
title_full_unstemmed Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals
title_short Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals
title_sort handling missing data in rcts; a review of the top medical journals
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4247714/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25407057
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-118
work_keys_str_mv AT bellmelaniel handlingmissingdatainrctsareviewofthetopmedicaljournals
AT fieromallorie handlingmissingdatainrctsareviewofthetopmedicaljournals
AT hortonnicholasj handlingmissingdatainrctsareviewofthetopmedicaljournals
AT hsuchiuhsieh handlingmissingdatainrctsareviewofthetopmedicaljournals