ArticleSystematic reviews2015
Handling trial participants with missing outcome data when conducting a meta-analysis: a systematic survey of proposed approaches.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
30 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Preference for Competitive Employment in People with Mental Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Proportions.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2025Pooled it
- Effect of systemic steroids administration in the clinical outcome of total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Endovascular revascularization strategies for aortoiliac and femoropopliteal artery disease: a meta-analysis.European heart journal · 2023Pooled it
- Vitamin D Supplementation and Fractures in Adults: A Systematic Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses of Controlled Trials.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2022Pooled it
- Delayed antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections: individual patient data meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of low and very low carbohydrate diets for type 2 diabetes remission: systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished randomized trial data.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Pooled it
- Minimally invasive parathyroidectomy guided by intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitoring (IOPTH) and preoperative imaging versus bilateral neck exploration for primary hyperparathyroidism in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Analytical methods used in estimating the prevalence of HIV/AIDS from demographic and cross-sectional surveys with missing data: a systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Pooled it
- Biofeedback for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Response and Remission Rates in Internet-Based Cognitive Behavior Therapy: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019Pooled it
- Physical manoeuvers as a preventive intervention to manage vasovagal syncope: A systematic review.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy: state of the evidence from a systematic review of randomised trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Telitacicept for pediatric Henoch-Schönlein purpura nephritis: analytical populations and safety monitoring.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Article
- Educational and skills-based interventions for preventing relationship and dating violence in adolescents and young adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Fasting stress hyperglycemia ratio as a predictor of intramyocardial hemorrhage and adverse outcomes in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Privacy preservation in blockchain-based healthcare data sharing: A systematic review.Peer-to-peer networking and applications · 2025Review
- Continuous(ly) missing outcome data in network meta-analysis: A one-stage pattern-mixture model approach.Statistical methods in medical research · 2021Article
- Effects of acupuncture for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhen potentially associated with the likelihood of outcome, missing participant data represents a serious potential source of bias in randomized trials. Authors of systematic reviews frequently face this problem when conducting meta-analyses. The objective of this study is to conduct a systematic survey of the relevant literature to identify proposed approaches for how systematic review authors should handle missing participant data when conducting a meta-analysis.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology register from inception to August 2014. We included papers that devoted at least two paragraphs to discuss a relevant approach for missing data. Five pairs of reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, selected relevant papers. One reviewer abstracted data from included papers and a second reviewer verified them. We summarized the results narratively.
resultsOf 9,138 identified citations, we included 11 eligible papers. Four proposed general approaches for handling dichotomous outcomes, and all recommended a complete case analysis as the primary analysis and additional sensitivity analyses using the following imputation methods: based on reasons for missingness (n = 3), relative to risk among followed up (n = 3), best-case scenario (n = 2), and worst-case scenario (n = 3). Three of these approaches suggested taking uncertainty into account. Two papers proposed general approaches for handling continuous outcomes, and both proposed a complete case analysis as the reference analysis and the following imputation methods as sensitivity analyses: based on reasons for missingness (n = 2), based on the mean observed in the same trial or other trials (n = 1), and based on informative missingness differences in means (n = 1). The remaining eligible papers did not propose general approaches but addressed specific statistical issues.
conclusionsAll proposed approaches for handling missing participant data recommend conducting a complete case analysis for the primary analysis and some form of sensitivity analysis to evaluate robustness of results. Although these approaches require further testing, they may guide review authors in addressing missing participant data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.