Skip to content
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Publication Details
AFRICAN RESEARCH NEXUS
SHINING A SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAN RESEARCH
medicine
Addressing continuous data for participants excluded from trial analysis: A guide for systematic reviewers
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Volume 66, No. 9, Year 2013
Notification
URL copied to clipboard!
Description
Background: No methods directly address the impact of missing participant data for continuous outcomes in systematic reviews on risk of bias. Methods: We conducted a consultative, iterative process to develop a framework for handling missing participant data for continuous outcomes. We considered sources reflecting real observed outcomes in participants followed-up in individual trials included in the systematic review, and developed a range of plausible strategies. We applied our approach to two systematic reviews. Results: We used five sources of data for imputing the means for participants with missing data. To impute standard deviation (SD), we used the median SD from the control arms of all included trials. Using these sources, we developed four progressively more stringent imputation strategies. In the first example review, effect estimates diminished and lost significance as strategies became more stringent, suggesting rating down confidence in estimates of effect for risk of bias. In the second, effect estimates maintained statistical significance using even the most stringent strategy, suggesting missing data does not undermine confidence in results. Conclusions: Our approach provides a useful, reasonable, and relatively simple, quantitative guidance for judging the impact of risk of bias as a result of missing participant data in systematic reviews of continuous outcomes. © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors & Co-Authors
Ebrahim, Shanil
Canada, Hamilton
Mcmaster University, Faculty of Health Sciences
Canada, Hamilton
Mcmaster University
Akl, Elie A.
Canada, Hamilton
Mcmaster University, Faculty of Health Sciences
Lebanon, Beirut
American University of Beirut
United States, Buffalo
Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences
Mustafa, Reem A.
Canada, Hamilton
Mcmaster University, Faculty of Health Sciences
United States, Kansas City
University of Missouri-kansas City
Sun, Xin
Canada, Hamilton
Mcmaster University, Faculty of Health Sciences
China, Chongqing
Xinqiao Hospital
Walter, Stephen D.
Canada, Hamilton
Mcmaster University, Faculty of Health Sciences
Heels-Ansdell, Diane M.
Canada, Hamilton
Mcmaster University, Faculty of Health Sciences
Alonso-Coello, Pablo
Spain, Madrid
Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública
Johnston, Bradley C.
Canada, Hamilton
Mcmaster University, Faculty of Health Sciences
Canada, Toronto
Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation
Canada, Toronto
Hospital for Sick Children University of Toronto
Canada, Toronto
Sickkids Research Institute
Gordon, Guyatt H.
Canada, Hamilton
Mcmaster University, Faculty of Health Sciences
Canada, Hamilton
Mcmaster University
Statistics
Citations: 125
Authors: 9
Affiliations: 10
Identifiers
Doi:
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.03.014
ISSN:
08954356
e-ISSN:
18785921
Study Approach
Quantitative
Systematic review