Reporting and handling missing outcome data in mental health: a systematic review of Cochrane systematic reviews and meta-analyses

被引:29
作者
Spineli, Loukia M. [1 ]
Pandis, Nikolaos [2 ,3 ]
Salanti, Georgia [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Ioannina, Sch Med, Dept Hyg & Epidemiol, GR-45110 Ioannina, Greece
[2] Univ Bern, Fac Med, Sch Dent, Dept Orthodont & Dentofacial Orthoped, CH-3012 Corfu, Switzerland
[3] Private practice, Corfu, Greece
关键词
missing outcome data; last observation carried forward; intention-to-treat analysis; systematic reviews; psychiatric trials; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS; CLINICAL-TRIALS; DROPOUT RATES; PART; DISCONTINUATION; ANTIPSYCHOTICS; UNCERTAINTY; ATTRITION; INTENTION; EFFICACY;
D O I
10.1002/jrsm.1131
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Objectives: The purpose of the study was to provide empirical evidence about the reporting of methodology to address missing outcome data and the acknowledgement of their impact in Cochrane systematic reviews in the mental health field. Methods: Systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews after January 1, 2009 by three Cochrane Review Groups relating to mental health were included. Results: One hundred ninety systematic reviews were considered. Missing outcome data were present in at least one included study in 175 systematic reviews. Of these 175 systematic reviews, 147 (84%) accounted for missing outcome data by considering a relevant primary or secondary outcome (e.g., dropout). Missing outcome data implications were reported only in 61 (35%) systematic reviews and primarily in the discussion section by commenting on the amount of the missing outcome data. One hundred forty eligible meta-analyses with missing data were scrutinized. Seventy-nine (56%) of them had studies with total dropout rate between 10 and 30%. One hundred nine (78%) meta-analyses reported to have performed intention-to-treat analysis by including trials with imputed outcome data. Sensitivity analysis for incomplete outcome data was implemented in less than 20% of the meta-analyses. Conclusions: Reporting of the techniques for handling missing outcome data and their implications in the findings of the systematic reviews are suboptimal. Copyright (C) 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:175 / 187
页数:13
相关论文
共 40 条
  • [1] Modified intention to treat reporting in randomised controlled trials: systematic review
    Abraha, Iosief
    Montedori, Alessandro
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2010, 340 : 33
  • [2] Addressing Dichotomous Data for Participants Excluded from Trial Analysis: A Guide for Systematic Reviewers
    Akl, Elie A.
    Johnston, Bradley C.
    Alonso-Coello, Pablo
    Neumann, Ignacio
    Ebrahim, Shanil
    Briel, Matthias
    Cook, Deborah J.
    Guyatt, Gordon H.
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2013, 8 (02):
  • [3] Potential impact on estimated treatment effects of information lost to follow-up in randomised controlled trials (LOST-IT): systematic review
    Akl, Elie A.
    Briel, Matthias
    You, John J.
    Sun, Xin
    Johnston, Bradley C.
    Busse, Jason W.
    Mulla, Sohail
    Lamontagne, Francois
    Bassler, Dirk
    Vera, Claudio
    Alshurafa, Mohamad
    Katsios, Christina M.
    Zhou, Qi
    Cukierman-Yaffe, Tali
    Gangji, Azim
    Mills, Edward J.
    Walter, Stephen D.
    Cook, Deborah J.
    Schuenemann, Holger J.
    Altman, Douglas G.
    Guyatt, Gordon H.
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2012, 344 : e2809
  • [4] Inconsistent Definitions for Intention-To-Treat in Relation to Missing Outcome Data: Systematic Review of the Methods Literature
    Alshurafa, Mohamad
    Briel, Matthias
    Akl, Elie A.
    Haines, Ted
    Moayyedi, Paul
    Gentles, Stephen J.
    Rios, Lorena
    Tran, Chau
    Bhatnagar, Neera
    Lamontagne, Francois
    Walter, Stephen D.
    Guyatt, Gordon H.
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2012, 7 (11):
  • [5] [Anonymous], REL PSYCH DRUGS PED
  • [6] [Anonymous], GUID MISS DAT CONF C
  • [7] [Anonymous], 2012, OUR QUESTIONS OUR DE
  • [8] [Anonymous], FRONT MATT PREV TREA
  • [9] [Anonymous], INT C HARM ICH TOP E
  • [10] Differential dropout and bias in randomised controlled trials: when it matters and when it may not
    Bell, Melanie L.
    Kenward, Michael G.
    Fairclough, Diane L.
    Horton, Nicholas J.
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2013, 346