Reporting and handling missing outcome data in mental health: a systematic review of Cochrane systematic reviews and meta-analyses
Options
BORIS DOI
Publisher DOI
PubMed ID
26099485
Description
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.
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.
Date of Publication
2015-06
Publication Type
Article
Subject(s)
Keyword(s)
dental implants
•
prosthodontics
•
randomised clinical trials
Language(s)
en
Contributor(s)
Spineli, Loukia M | |
Salanti, Georgia |
Additional Credits
Series
Research Synthesis Methods
Publisher
Wiley
ISSN
1759-2879
Access(Rights)
restricted