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

Show full item record



Permalink

http://hdl.handle.net/10138/161896

Citation

Akl , E A , Carrasco-Labra , A , Brignardello-Petersen , R , Neumann , I , Johnston , B C , Sun , X , Briel , M , Busse , J W , Ebrahim , S , Granados , C E , Iorio , A , Irfan , A , Martinez Garcia , L , Mustafa , R A , Ramirez-Morera , A , Selva , A , Sola , I , Sanabria , A J , Tikkinen , K A O , Vandvik , P O , Vernooij , R W M , Zazueta , O E , Zhou , Q , Guyatt , G H & Alonso-Coello , P 2015 , ' Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews : a methodological survey ' , BMJ Open , vol. 5 , no. 9 , 009368 . https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009368

Title: Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews : a methodological survey
Author: Akl, Elie A.; Carrasco-Labra, Alonso; Brignardello-Petersen, Romina; Neumann, Ignacio; Johnston, Bradley C.; Sun, Xin; Briel, Matthias; Busse, Jason W.; Ebrahim, Shanil; Granados, Carlos E.; Iorio, Alfonso; Irfan, Affan; Martinez Garcia, Laura; Mustafa, Reem A.; Ramirez-Morera, Anggie; Selva, Anna; Sola, Ivan; Sanabria, Andrea Juliana; Tikkinen, Kari A. O.; Vandvik, Per O.; Vernooij, Robin W. M.; Zazueta, Oscar E.; Zhou, Qi; Guyatt, Gordon H.; Alonso-Coello, Pablo
Contributor: University of Helsinki, Urologian yksikkö
Date: 2015
Language: eng
Number of pages: 8
Belongs to series: BMJ Open
ISSN: 2044-6055
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10138/161896
Abstract: Objectives: To describe how systematic reviewers are reporting missing data for dichotomous outcomes, handling them in the analysis and assessing the risk of associated bias. Methods: 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. Results: Of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, 47% and 7% (p Conclusions: 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.
Subject: ADDRESSING CONTINUOUS DATA
TRIALS LOST-IT
POTENTIAL IMPACT
CLINICAL-TRIALS
FOLLOW-UP
METAANALYSIS
UNCERTAINTY
INFORMATION
GUIDE
3142 Public health care science, environmental and occupational health
Rights:


Files in this item

Total number of downloads: Loading...

Files Size Format View
e009368.full.pdf 821.7Kb PDF View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show full item record