This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Wood, A. M Articles by Thompson, S. G Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wood, A. M Articles by Thompson, S. G Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Are missing outcome data adequately handled? A review of published randomized controlled trials in major medical journals

Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, Robinson Way, Cambridge CB2 2SR, UK; angela.wood{at}mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk

Ian R White

Simon G Thompson

MRC Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, Robinson Way, Cambridge CB2 2SR, UK

Background Randomized controlled trials almost always have some individuals with missing outcomes. Inadequate handling of these missing data in the analysis can cause substantial bias in the treatment effect estimates. We examine how missing outcome data are handled in randomized controlled trials in order to assess whether adequate steps have been taken to reduce nonresponse bias and to identify ways to improve procedures for missing data.

Methods We reviewed all randomized trials published between July and December 2001 in BMJ, JAMA, Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine, excluding trials in which the primary outcome was described as a time-to-event. We focused on trial designs, how missing outcome data were described and the statistical methods used to deal with the missing outcome data, including sensitivity analyses.

Results We identified 71 trials of which 63 (89%) reported having partly missing outcome data: 13 trials had more than 20% of patients with missing outcomes. In 26 trials that measured the outcome at a single time point, 92% performed a complete case analysis and 8% imputed the missing outcomes using baseline values or the worst case value. In 37 trials with repeated measures of the outcome, 46% performed complete case analyses, potentially excluding individuals with some follow-up data, while 14% performed a repeated measures analysis, 19% used the last observation carried forward, 11% imputed with the worst case value and 2% imputed using regression predictions. Thirteen (21%) of trials with missing data reported a sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions Our review shows that missing outcome data are a common problem in randomized controlled trials, and are often inadequately handled in the statistical analysis in the top tier medical journals. Authors should explicitly state the assumptions underlying the handling of the missing outcomes and justify them through data descriptions and sensitivity analyses.

Clinical Trials, Vol. 1, No. 4, 368-376 (2004)
DOI: 10.1191/1740774504cn032oa


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. A C Sterne, I. R White, J. B Carlin, M. Spratt, P. Royston, M. G Kenward, A. M Wood, and J. R Carpenter Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls BMJ, June 29, 2009; 338(jun29_1): b2393 - b2393. [Full Text]

				S. Brien, P. Prescott, and G. Lewith Meta-analysis of the Related Nutritional Supplements Dimethyl Sulfoxide and Methylsulfonylmethane in the Treatment of Osteoarthritis of the Knee Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med., May 27, 2009; (2009) nep045v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Shardell, D. O. Scharfstein, D. Vlahov, and N. Galai Sensitivity Analysis Using Elicited Expert Information for Inference With Coarsened Data: Illustration of Censored Discrete Event Times in the AIDS Link to Intravenous Experience (ALIVE) Study Am. J. Epidemiol., December 15, 2008; 168(12): 1460 - 1469. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. P. Higgins, I. R White, and A. M Wood Imputation methods for missing outcome data in meta-analysis of clinical trials Clinical Trials, June 1, 2008; 5(3): 225 - 239. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. W. Vernon, D. J. del Junco, J. A. Tiro, S. P. Coan, C. A. Perz, L. A. Bastian, W. Rakowski, W. Chan, D. R. Lairson, A. McQueen, et al. Promoting Regular Mammography Screening II. Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial in US Women Veterans J Natl Cancer Inst, March 5, 2008; 100(5): 347 - 358. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. J. del Junco, S. W. Vernon, S. P. Coan, J. A. Tiro, L. A. Bastian, L. S. Savas, C. A. Perz, D. R. Lairson, W. Chan, C. Warrick, et al. Promoting Regular Mammography Screening I. A Systematic Assessment of Validity in a Randomized Trial J Natl Cancer Inst, March 5, 2008; 100(5): 333 - 346. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Reichenbach, R. Sterchi, M. Scherer, S. Trelle, E. Burgi, U. Burgi, P. A. Dieppe, and P. Juni Meta-analysis: Chondroitin for Osteoarthritis of the Knee or Hip Ann Intern Med, April 17, 2007; 146(8): 580 - 590. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. R White, J. Carpenter, S. Evans, and S. Schroter Eliciting and using expert opinions about dropout bias in randomized controlled trials Clinical Trials, April 1, 2007; 4(2): 125 - 139. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N R Cook Imputation strategies for blood pressure data nonignorably missing due to medication use Clinical Trials, October 1, 2006; 3(5): 411 - 420. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. K. Enders A Primer on the Use of Modern Missing-Data Methods in Psychosomatic Medicine Research Psychosom Med, May 1, 2006; 68(3): 427 - 436. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]