Clinical Trials

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wood, A. M
Right arrow Articles by Thompson, S. G
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wood, A. M
Right arrow Articles by Thompson, S. G
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Clinical Trials, Vol. 1, No. 4, 368-376 (2004)
DOI: 10.1191/1740774504cn032oa


Reviews

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

Angela M Wood

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.


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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Clin TrialsHome page
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]


Home page
JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
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]


Home page
JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
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]


Home page
ANN INTERN MEDHome page
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]


Home page
Clin TrialsHome page
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]


Home page
Clin TrialsHome page
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]


Home page
Psychosom. Med.Home page
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]