Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Systematic reviewer authors need to consider study participants with missing data, and how that missing data impacts on risk of bias.
Objectives: To describe methods being used in systematic reviews for reporting, handling, and judging risk of bias associated with missing participant data.
Methods: We searched Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials published in 2010 and reporting a meta-analysis of a dichotomous outcome. After teams of two reviewers screened studies for eligibility, we randomly selected 75 Cochrane and 75 non-Cochrane reviews. Teams of two reviewers are currently abstracting data using standardized, piloted forms and written instructions. We are abstracting from the methods section of systematic reviews whether the reviewers reported: their plan to collect information about missing participant data, how they will handle them, and the criteria and tools for assessing their impact on risk of bias. We will abstract from the results section whether and in what format the reviewers reported missing participant data. We will document the extent to which the authors discuss the implications of missing participant data.
Results: Data abstraction is ongoing. The results of analyses will be available for presentation at the colloquium.
Conclusions: The results of this study will provide insight on how systematic review authors are addressing missing participant data. Our findings will inform the development of specific guidance for Cochrane review authors on optimal ways of addressing missing participant data.
Objectives: To describe methods being used in systematic reviews for reporting, handling, and judging risk of bias associated with missing participant data.
Methods: We searched Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials published in 2010 and reporting a meta-analysis of a dichotomous outcome. After teams of two reviewers screened studies for eligibility, we randomly selected 75 Cochrane and 75 non-Cochrane reviews. Teams of two reviewers are currently abstracting data using standardized, piloted forms and written instructions. We are abstracting from the methods section of systematic reviews whether the reviewers reported: their plan to collect information about missing participant data, how they will handle them, and the criteria and tools for assessing their impact on risk of bias. We will abstract from the results section whether and in what format the reviewers reported missing participant data. We will document the extent to which the authors discuss the implications of missing participant data.
Results: Data abstraction is ongoing. The results of analyses will be available for presentation at the colloquium.
Conclusions: The results of this study will provide insight on how systematic review authors are addressing missing participant data. Our findings will inform the development of specific guidance for Cochrane review authors on optimal ways of addressing missing participant data.