GRADE guidelines 17: assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant outcome data in a body of evidence
- 18 May 2017
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Elsevier BV in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Vol. 87, 14-22
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.005
Abstract
No abstract availableThis publication has 32 references indexed in Scilit:
- Addressing Dichotomous Data for Participants Excluded from Trial Analysis: A Guide for Systematic ReviewersPLOS ONE, 2013
- Inconsistent Definitions for Intention-To-Treat in Relation to Missing Outcome Data: Systematic Review of the Methods LiteraturePLOS ONE, 2012
- GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidenceJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2011
- GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence-study limitations (risk of bias)Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2011
- Improving the interpretation of quality of life evidence in meta-analyses: the application of minimal important difference unitsHealth and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2010
- Modified intention to treat reporting in randomised controlled trials: systematic reviewBMJ, 2010
- Imputation methods for missing outcome data in meta-analysis of clinical trialsClinical Trials, 2008
- Allowing for uncertainty due to missing data in meta‐analysis—Part 1: Two‐stage methodsStatistics in Medicine, 2007
- Allowing for uncertainty due to missing data in meta‐analysis—Part 2: Hierarchical modelsStatistics in Medicine, 2007
- Assessing allocation concealment and blinding in randomised controlled trials: why bother?Evidence-Based Nursing, 2001