Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32787782›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020

A four-step strategy for handling missing outcome data in randomised trials affected by a pandemic.

Suzie Cro, Tim P Morris, Brennan C Kahan, Victoria R Cornelius, James R Carpenter

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Estimands for factorial trials.Statistics in medicine · 2022
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Causal Inference Methods for Combining Randomized Trials and Observational Studies: A Review.Statistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Eliminating Ambiguous Treatment Effects Using Estimands.American journal of epidemiology · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Suzie CroImperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, Stadium House, 68 Wood Lane, London, UK. s.cro@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6113-1173
Tim P MorrisDepartment of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Brennan C KahanDepartment of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Victoria R CorneliusImperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, Stadium House, 68 Wood Lane, London, UK.
James R CarpenterDepartment of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBImperial College London · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/21Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/29
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe coronavirus pandemic (Covid-19) presents a variety of challenges for ongoing clinical trials, including an inevitably higher rate of missing outcome data, with new and non-standard reasons for missingness. International drug trial guidelines recommend trialists review plans for handling missing data in the conduct and statistical analysis, but clear recommendations are lacking.

methodsWe present a four-step strategy for handling missing outcome data in the analysis of randomised trials that are ongoing during a pandemic. We consider handling missing data arising due to (i) participant infection, (ii) treatment disruptions and (iii) loss to follow-up. We consider both settings where treatment effects for a 'pandemic-free world' and 'world including a pandemic' are of interest.

resultsIn any trial, investigators should; (1) Clarify the treatment estimand of interest with respect to the occurrence of the pandemic; (2) Establish what data are missing for the chosen estimand; (3) Perform primary analysis under the most plausible missing data assumptions followed by; (4) Sensitivity analysis under alternative plausible assumptions. To obtain an estimate of the treatment effect in a 'pandemic-free world', participant data that are clinically affected by the pandemic (directly due to infection or indirectly via treatment disruptions) are not relevant and can be set to missing. For primary analysis, a missing-at-random assumption that conditions on all observed data that are expected to be associated with both the outcome and missingness may be most plausible. For the treatment effect in the 'world including a pandemic', all participant data is relevant and should be included in the analysis. For primary analysis, a missing-at-random assumption - potentially incorporating a pandemic time-period indicator and participant infection status - or a missing-not-at-random assumption with a poorer response may be most relevant, depending on the setting. In all scenarios, sensitivity analysis under credible missing-not-at-random assumptions should be used to evaluate the robustness of results. We highlight controlled multiple imputation as an accessible tool for conducting sensitivity analyses.

conclusionsMissing data problems will be exacerbated for trials active during the Covid-19 pandemic. This four-step strategy will facilitate clear thinking about the appropriate analysis for relevant questions of interest.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicBetacoronavirusComorbidityCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19HumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePandemicsPneumonia, ViralRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignSARS-CoV-2Controlled multiple imputationCoronavirus SARS-CoV-2Covid-19EstimandsMissing dataPandemicRandomised trialsSensitivity analysis

Identifiers

PMID32787782
PMCPMC7422467
OpenAlexW3046271428

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.