Dataset Information

The current practice of handling and reporting missing outcome data in eight widely used PROMs in RCT publications: a review of the current literature.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are designed to assess patients' perceived health states or health-related quality of life. However, PROMs are susceptible to missing data, which can affect the validity of conclusions from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). This review aims to assess current practice in the handling, analysis and reporting of missing PROMs outcome data in RCTs compared to contemporary methodology and guidance.

Methods

This structured review of the literature includes RCTs with a minimum of 50 participants per arm. Studies using the EQ-5D-3L, EORTC QLQ-C30, SF-12 and SF-36 were included if published in 2013; those using the less commonly implemented HUI, OHS, OKS and PDQ were included if published between 2009 and 2013.

Results

The review included 237 records (4-76 per relevant PROM). Complete case analysis and single imputation were commonly used in 33 and 15 % of publications, respectively. Multiple imputation was reported for 9 % of the PROMs reviewed. The majority of publications (93 %) failed to describe the assumed missing data mechanism, while low numbers of papers reported methods to minimise missing data (23 %), performed sensitivity analyses (22 %) or discussed the potential influence of missing data on results (16 %).

Conclusions

Considerable discrepancy exists between approved methodology and current practice in handling, analysis and reporting of missing PROMs outcome data in RCTs. Greater awareness is needed for the potential biases introduced by inappropriate handling of missing data, as well as the importance of sensitivity analysis and clear reporting to enable appropriate assessments of treatment effects and conclusions from RCTs.

SUBMITTER: Rombach I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4893363 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRetaining participants in cohort studies with multiple follow-up waves is difficult. Commonly, researchers are faced with the problem of missing data, which may introduce biased results as well as a loss of statistical power and precision. The STROBE guidelines von Elm et al. (Lancet, 370:1453-1457, 2007); Vandenbroucke et al. (PLoS Med, 4:e297, 2007) and the guidelines proposed by Sterne et al. (BMJ, 338:b2393, 2009) recommend that cohort studies report on the amount of missing data, the reasons for non-participation and non-response, and the method used to handle missing data in the analyses. We have conducted a review of publications from cohort studies in order to document the reporting of missing data for exposure measures and to describe the statistical methods used to account for the missing data.MethodsA systematic search of English language papers published from January 2000 to December 2009 was carried out in PubMed. Prospective cohort studies with a sample size greater than 1,000 that analysed data using repeated measures of exposure were included.ResultsAmong the 82 papers meeting the inclusion criteria, only 35 (43%) reported the amount of missing data according to the suggested guidelines. Sixty-eight papers (83%) described how they dealt with missing data in the analysis. Most of the papers excluded participants with missing data and performed a complete-case analysis (n=54, 66%). Other papers used more sophisticated methods including multiple imputation (n=5) or fully Bayesian modeling (n=1). Methods known to produce biased results were also used, for example, Last Observation Carried Forward (n=7), the missing indicator method (n=1), and mean value substitution (n=3). For the remaining 14 papers, the method used to handle missing data in the analysis was not stated.ConclusionsThis review highlights the inconsistent reporting of missing data in cohort studies and the continuing use of inappropriate methods to handle missing data in the analysis. Epidemiological journals should invoke the STROBE guidelines as a framework for authors so that the amount of missing data and how this was accounted for in the analysis is transparent in the reporting of cohort studies.

Project description:BackgroundExtant literature suggests that a substantial portion of athletes may not report a possible concussion and that concussion knowledge is insufficient to predict concussion reporting behavior. One area that has not been explored is reporting skill; that is, mastery of the actions required to report a concussion. This study evaluated the relationship between reporting skill and reporting intention, introducing a measure of the reporting skill construct.HypothesesReporting intentions will be more closely associated with reporting skill than with concussion/symptom knowledge. The relationship between concussion (or symptom) knowledge and reporting intentions will differ by level of reporting skill.Study designRepeated cross-sectional study.Level of evidenceLevel 2.MethodsA set of items was administered to young adults aged 18 to 24 years from the Survey Sampling International panel. Exploratory/confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on 2 waves of data to develop the scale (n = 899). Hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling on the responses from the third wave of participants (n = 406).ResultsKnowing the actions to take in reporting was more important than having knowledge of concussions or concussion symptoms. Reporting skill, not concussion or concussion symptom knowledge, was associated with higher intentions to report symptoms. Among those with higher levels of reporting skill, concussion symptom knowledge (but not general concussion knowledge) was associated with higher intentions to report symptoms.ConclusionReporting skill is an important and, until now, missing ingredient in the concussion literature and practice.Clinical relevanceIncorporating reporting skill development in concussion education and team activities to teach athletes how to report is likely to improve actual reporting intentions. While further study is needed with particular sports and additional age groups, reporting skill holds promise as a new avenue for increased concussion reporting.