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

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 publ...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: 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., García L.M., Mustafa R.A., Ramírez-Morera A., Selva A., Solà 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.
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Estado:Versión publicada
Fecha de publicación:2015
País:España
Institución:Institut d’Investigació Biomèdica Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau)
Repositorio:r-IIB SANT PAU. Repositorio Institucional de Producción Científica del Instituto de Investigación Biomédica Sant Pau
OAI Identifier:oai:iibsantpau.fundanetsuite.com:p10586
Acceso en línea:https://iibsantpau.fundanetsuite.com/Publicaciones/ProdCientif/PublicacionFrw.aspx?id=10586
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84956929414&doi=10.1136%2fbmjopen-2015-009368&partnerID=40&md5=7da7a23756842c103d95e0a3835280a4
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:case study
controlled study
decision making
human
human experiment
regression analysis
systematic review
literature
measurement accuracy
meta analysis (topic)
methodology
questionnaire
standards
statistical bias
Bias (Epidemiology)
Data Accuracy
Humans
Meta-Analysis as Topic
Research Design
Review Literature as Topic
Surveys and Questionnaires
id ES_c63d5019db9f1a5c95dbbc9b9f4381cd
oai_identifier_str oai:iibsantpau.fundanetsuite.com:p10586
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews: A methodological surveyAkl 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.García L.M.Mustafa R.A.Ramírez-Morera A.Selva A.Solà 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.case studycontrolled studydecision makinghumanhuman experimentregression analysissystematic reviewliteraturemeasurement accuracymeta analysis (topic)methodologyquestionnairestandardsstatistical biasBias (Epidemiology)Data AccuracyHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicResearch DesignReview Literature as TopicSurveys and QuestionnairesObjectives: 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<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). 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.BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP2015info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttps://iibsantpau.fundanetsuite.com/Publicaciones/ProdCientif/PublicacionFrw.aspx?id=10586https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84956929414&doi=10.1136%2fbmjopen-2015-009368&partnerID=40&md5=7da7a23756842c103d95e0a3835280a4BMJ OpenISSN: 20446055reponame:r-IIB SANT PAU. Repositorio Institucional de Producción Científica del Instituto de Investigación Biomédica Sant Pauinstname:Institut d’Investigació Biomèdica Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau)Inglésinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:iibsantpau.fundanetsuite.com:p105862026-06-14T12:41:47Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews: A methodological survey
title Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews: A methodological survey
spellingShingle Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews: A methodological survey
Akl E.A.
case study
controlled study
decision making
human
human experiment
regression analysis
systematic review
literature
measurement accuracy
meta analysis (topic)
methodology
questionnaire
standards
statistical bias
Bias (Epidemiology)
Data Accuracy
Humans
Meta-Analysis as Topic
Research Design
Review Literature as Topic
Surveys and Questionnaires
title_short Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews: A methodological survey
title_full Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews: A methodological survey
title_fullStr Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews: A methodological survey
title_full_unstemmed Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews: A methodological survey
title_sort Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews: A methodological survey
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv 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.
García L.M.
Mustafa R.A.
Ramírez-Morera A.
Selva A.
Solà 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.
author Akl E.A.
author_facet 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.
García L.M.
Mustafa R.A.
Ramírez-Morera A.
Selva A.
Solà 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.
author_role author
author2 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.
García L.M.
Mustafa R.A.
Ramírez-Morera A.
Selva A.
Solà 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.
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv case study
controlled study
decision making
human
human experiment
regression analysis
systematic review
literature
measurement accuracy
meta analysis (topic)
methodology
questionnaire
standards
statistical bias
Bias (Epidemiology)
Data Accuracy
Humans
Meta-Analysis as Topic
Research Design
Review Literature as Topic
Surveys and Questionnaires
topic case study
controlled study
decision making
human
human experiment
regression analysis
systematic review
literature
measurement accuracy
meta analysis (topic)
methodology
questionnaire
standards
statistical bias
Bias (Epidemiology)
Data Accuracy
Humans
Meta-Analysis as Topic
Research Design
Review Literature as Topic
Surveys and Questionnaires
description 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<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). 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.
publishDate 2015
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2015
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv https://iibsantpau.fundanetsuite.com/Publicaciones/ProdCientif/PublicacionFrw.aspx?id=10586
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84956929414&doi=10.1136%2fbmjopen-2015-009368&partnerID=40&md5=7da7a23756842c103d95e0a3835280a4
url https://iibsantpau.fundanetsuite.com/Publicaciones/ProdCientif/PublicacionFrw.aspx?id=10586
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84956929414&doi=10.1136%2fbmjopen-2015-009368&partnerID=40&md5=7da7a23756842c103d95e0a3835280a4
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv Inglés
language_invalid_str_mv Inglés
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
publisher.none.fl_str_mv BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv BMJ Open
ISSN: 20446055
reponame:r-IIB SANT PAU. Repositorio Institucional de Producción Científica del Instituto de Investigación Biomédica Sant Pau
instname:Institut d’Investigació Biomèdica Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau)
instname_str Institut d’Investigació Biomèdica Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau)
reponame_str r-IIB SANT PAU. Repositorio Institucional de Producción Científica del Instituto de Investigación Biomédica Sant Pau
collection r-IIB SANT PAU. Repositorio Institucional de Producción Científica del Instituto de Investigación Biomédica Sant Pau
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1869419056765861888
score 15.228081

Similares en LA Referencia