Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals

Melanie L Bell, Mallorie Fiero, Nicholas J. Horton, Chiu-Hsieh Hsu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

88 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Missing outcome data is a threat to the validity of treatment effect estimates in randomized controlled trials. We aimed to evaluate the extent, handling, and sensitivity analysis of missing data and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in top tier medical journals, and compare our findings with previous reviews related to missing data and ITT in RCTs.

METHODS: Review of RCTs published between July and December 2013 in the BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine, excluding cluster randomized trials and trials whose primary outcome was survival.

RESULTS: Of the 77 identified eligible articles, 73 (95%) reported some missing outcome data. The median percentage of participants with a missing outcome was 9% (range 0 - 70%). The most commonly used method to handle missing data in the primary analysis was complete case analysis (33, 45%), while 20 (27%) performed simple imputation, 15 (19%) used model based methods, and 6 (8%) used multiple imputation. 27 (35%) trials with missing data reported a sensitivity analysis. However, most did not alter the assumptions of missing data from the primary analysis. Reports of ITT or modified ITT were found in 52 (85%) trials, with 21 (40%) of them including all randomized participants. A comparison to a review of trials reported in 2001 showed that missing data rates and approaches are similar, but the use of the term ITT has increased, as has the report of sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS: Missing outcome data continues to be a common problem in RCTs. Definitions of the ITT approach remain inconsistent across trials. A large gap is apparent between statistical methods research related to missing data and use of these methods in application settings, including RCTs in top medical journals.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)118
Number of pages1
JournalBMC Medical Research Methodology
Volume14
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Randomized Controlled Trials
New England
Intention to Treat Analysis
Medicine
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals. / Bell, Melanie L; Fiero, Mallorie; Horton, Nicholas J.; Hsu, Chiu-Hsieh.

In: BMC Medical Research Methodology, Vol. 14, 2014, p. 118.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{420dfef4d3ce4874b861ea889937f34f,
title = "Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Missing outcome data is a threat to the validity of treatment effect estimates in randomized controlled trials. We aimed to evaluate the extent, handling, and sensitivity analysis of missing data and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in top tier medical journals, and compare our findings with previous reviews related to missing data and ITT in RCTs.METHODS: Review of RCTs published between July and December 2013 in the BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine, excluding cluster randomized trials and trials whose primary outcome was survival.RESULTS: Of the 77 identified eligible articles, 73 (95{\%}) reported some missing outcome data. The median percentage of participants with a missing outcome was 9{\%} (range 0 - 70{\%}). The most commonly used method to handle missing data in the primary analysis was complete case analysis (33, 45{\%}), while 20 (27{\%}) performed simple imputation, 15 (19{\%}) used model based methods, and 6 (8{\%}) used multiple imputation. 27 (35{\%}) trials with missing data reported a sensitivity analysis. However, most did not alter the assumptions of missing data from the primary analysis. Reports of ITT or modified ITT were found in 52 (85{\%}) trials, with 21 (40{\%}) of them including all randomized participants. A comparison to a review of trials reported in 2001 showed that missing data rates and approaches are similar, but the use of the term ITT has increased, as has the report of sensitivity analysis.CONCLUSIONS: Missing outcome data continues to be a common problem in RCTs. Definitions of the ITT approach remain inconsistent across trials. A large gap is apparent between statistical methods research related to missing data and use of these methods in application settings, including RCTs in top medical journals.",
author = "Bell, {Melanie L} and Mallorie Fiero and Horton, {Nicholas J.} and Chiu-Hsieh Hsu",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1186/1471-2288-14-118",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
pages = "118",
journal = "BMC Medical Research Methodology",
issn = "1471-2288",
publisher = "BioMed Central",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals

AU - Bell, Melanie L

AU - Fiero, Mallorie

AU - Horton, Nicholas J.

AU - Hsu, Chiu-Hsieh

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - BACKGROUND: Missing outcome data is a threat to the validity of treatment effect estimates in randomized controlled trials. We aimed to evaluate the extent, handling, and sensitivity analysis of missing data and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in top tier medical journals, and compare our findings with previous reviews related to missing data and ITT in RCTs.METHODS: Review of RCTs published between July and December 2013 in the BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine, excluding cluster randomized trials and trials whose primary outcome was survival.RESULTS: Of the 77 identified eligible articles, 73 (95%) reported some missing outcome data. The median percentage of participants with a missing outcome was 9% (range 0 - 70%). The most commonly used method to handle missing data in the primary analysis was complete case analysis (33, 45%), while 20 (27%) performed simple imputation, 15 (19%) used model based methods, and 6 (8%) used multiple imputation. 27 (35%) trials with missing data reported a sensitivity analysis. However, most did not alter the assumptions of missing data from the primary analysis. Reports of ITT or modified ITT were found in 52 (85%) trials, with 21 (40%) of them including all randomized participants. A comparison to a review of trials reported in 2001 showed that missing data rates and approaches are similar, but the use of the term ITT has increased, as has the report of sensitivity analysis.CONCLUSIONS: Missing outcome data continues to be a common problem in RCTs. Definitions of the ITT approach remain inconsistent across trials. A large gap is apparent between statistical methods research related to missing data and use of these methods in application settings, including RCTs in top medical journals.

AB - BACKGROUND: Missing outcome data is a threat to the validity of treatment effect estimates in randomized controlled trials. We aimed to evaluate the extent, handling, and sensitivity analysis of missing data and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in top tier medical journals, and compare our findings with previous reviews related to missing data and ITT in RCTs.METHODS: Review of RCTs published between July and December 2013 in the BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine, excluding cluster randomized trials and trials whose primary outcome was survival.RESULTS: Of the 77 identified eligible articles, 73 (95%) reported some missing outcome data. The median percentage of participants with a missing outcome was 9% (range 0 - 70%). The most commonly used method to handle missing data in the primary analysis was complete case analysis (33, 45%), while 20 (27%) performed simple imputation, 15 (19%) used model based methods, and 6 (8%) used multiple imputation. 27 (35%) trials with missing data reported a sensitivity analysis. However, most did not alter the assumptions of missing data from the primary analysis. Reports of ITT or modified ITT were found in 52 (85%) trials, with 21 (40%) of them including all randomized participants. A comparison to a review of trials reported in 2001 showed that missing data rates and approaches are similar, but the use of the term ITT has increased, as has the report of sensitivity analysis.CONCLUSIONS: Missing outcome data continues to be a common problem in RCTs. Definitions of the ITT approach remain inconsistent across trials. A large gap is apparent between statistical methods research related to missing data and use of these methods in application settings, including RCTs in top medical journals.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84929252277&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84929252277&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1471-2288-14-118

DO - 10.1186/1471-2288-14-118

M3 - Article

C2 - 25407057

AN - SCOPUS:84929252277

VL - 14

SP - 118

JO - BMC Medical Research Methodology

JF - BMC Medical Research Methodology

SN - 1471-2288

ER -