Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28532739›Full record

SynthesisJournal of clinical epidemiology2017

Quality of missing data reporting and handling in palliative care trials demonstrates that further development of the CONSORT statement is required: a systematic review.

Jamilla A Hussain, Martin Bland, Dean Langan, Miriam J Johnson, David C Currow, Ian R White

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jamilla A HussainHull York Medical School, University of York, John Hughlings Jackson Building, York YO10 5DD, UK. Electronic address: jamillahussain05@gmail.com.
Martin BlandHealth Sciences Department, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK.
Dean LanganCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK.
Miriam J JohnsonSEDA, University of Hull, Hertford Building, Cottingham Road, Hull HU6 7RX, UK.
David C CurrowPalliative and Supportive Services, Flinders University, 216 Daws Road, Daw Park, SA 5041, Australia.
Ian R WhiteMRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge Institute for Public Health, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK; MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London WC2B 6NH, UK.

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2013-06-001Medical Research Council MC_U105260558Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/21
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesAssess (i) the quality of reporting and handling of missing data (MD) in palliative care trials, (ii) whether there are differences in the reporting of criteria specified by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement compared with those not specified, and (iii) the association of the reporting of MD with journal impact factor and CONSORT endorsement status. STUDY DESIGN AND

settingSystematic review of palliative care randomized controlled trials. CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE (2009-2014) were searched.

resultsOne hundred and eight trials (15,560 participants) were included. MD was incompletely reported and not handled in accordance with current guidance. Reporting criteria specified by the CONSORT statement were better reported than those not specified (participant flow, 69%; number of participants not included in the primary outcome analysis, 94%; and the reason for MD, 71%). However, MD in items contributing to scale summaries (10%) and secondary outcomes (9%) were poorly reported, so the proportion of MD stated is likely to be an underestimate. The reason for MD provided was unclear for 54% of participants and only 16% of trials with MD reported a MD sensitivity analysis. The odds of reporting most of the MD and other risk of bias reporting criteria were increased as the journal impact factor increased and in journals that endorsed the CONSORT statement.

conclusionFurther development of the CONSORT MD reporting guidance is likely to improve the quality of reporting. Reporting recommendations are provided.

Indexed as

Guideline AdherencePalliative CareHumansJournal Impact FactorQuality ControlRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignResearch ReportData reportingMissing dataPalliative careRandomized controlled trialsResearch reportSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID28532739
PMCPMC5590708

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.