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

Abstract

BackgroundMissing 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.MethodsReview 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionsMissing 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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-118) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The feasibility of early pulmonary rehabilitation and activity after COPD exacerbations: external pilot randomised controlled trial, qualitative case study and exploratory economic evaluation

“…107,108 Treatment was dealt with 'as randomised'. Demographics and baseline characteristics summaries were provided for the ITT population.…”

Selling vs. non-selling neuro-oncology research cohorts and manuscripts in the eyes of a grumpy reviewer after 2,000 reviews

“…It seems that the young generation has adopted, e.g., Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox models for the handling of incomplete follow-up data and time-dependent end variables (see 7). We would suggest a few more methods to impress the reviewers and support potential readers, such as meta-analysis of previous relevant cohorts [8]; multiple imputation for missing data [1,10] at least to show that the authors were alert; competing risks analysis [4]. A partitioning tree from the recursive partitioning analysis [11] helps to show, instead of lengthy texts, how combinations of risk factors were distributed in the whole cohort-to support the table of independent risk factors with their ORs or HRs.…”

Missing CD4+ cell response in randomized clinical trials of maraviroc and dolutegravir

“…These can enable transparent discussion of the assumptions underpinning an analysis. The most well-known and widely used single imputation methods are the lastand baseline-observation carried forward (LOCF and BOCF) 22 although ''in nearly all cases, there are better alternatives to LOCF and BOCF imputation, which are based on more reasonable assumptions and hence result in more reliable inferences about treatment effects.'' 6 Single imputation methods also weight imputed data as if they are new independent data, which they are not.…”