Addressing Dichotomous Data for Participants Excluded from Trial Analysis: A Guide for Systematic Reviewers
Open Access
- 25 February 2013
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLOS ONE
- Vol. 8 (2), e57132
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057132
Abstract
Systematic reviewer authors intending to include all randomized participants in their meta-analyses need to make assumptions about the outcomes of participants with missing data. The objective of this paper is to provide systematic reviewer authors with a relatively simple guidance for addressing dichotomous data for participants excluded from analyses of randomized trials. This guide is based on a review of the Cochrane handbook and published methodological research. The guide deals with participants excluded from the analysis who were considered ‘non-adherent to the protocol’ but for whom data are available, and participants with missing data. Systematic reviewer authors should include data from ‘non-adherent’ participants excluded from the primary study authors' analysis but for whom data are available. For missing, unavailable participant data, authors may conduct a complete case analysis (excluding those with missing data) as the primary analysis. Alternatively, they may conduct a primary analysis that makes plausible assumptions about the outcomes of participants with missing data. When the primary analysis suggests important benefit, sensitivity meta-analyses using relatively extreme assumptions that may vary in plausibility can inform the extent to which risk of bias impacts the confidence in the results of the primary analysis. The more plausible assumptions draw on the outcome event rates within the trial or in all trials included in the meta-analysis. The proposed guide does not take into account the uncertainty associated with assumed events. This guide proposes methods for handling participants excluded from analyses of randomized trials. These methods can help in establishing the extent to which risk of bias impacts meta-analysis results.This publication has 18 references indexed in Scilit:
- Inconsistent Definitions for Intention-To-Treat in Relation to Missing Outcome Data: Systematic Review of the Methods LiteraturePLOS ONE, 2012
- Reporting of loss to follow-up information in randomised controlled trials with time-to-event outcomes: a literature surveyBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2011
- Strategy for intention to treat analysis in randomised trials with missing outcome dataBMJ, 2011
- Long-term results of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding in patients lost to follow-upBritish Journal of Surgery, 2010
- Combining estimates of interest in prognostic modelling studies after multiple imputation: current practice and guidelinesBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2009
- LOST to follow-up Information in Trials (LOST-IT): a protocol on the potential impactTrials, 2009
- Sampling-Based Approach to Determining Outcomes of Patients Lost to Follow-Up in Antiretroviral Therapy Scale-Up Programs in AfricaJAMA, 2008
- Imputation methods for missing outcome data in meta-analysis of clinical trialsClinical Trials, 2008
- Analysis of clinical trials by treatment actually received: Is it really an option?Statistics in Medicine, 1991