ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2025
Challenges in Results Robustness of Trials with Missing Data for the Primary Endpoint: Insights from Coronary Balloon/Stent Trials.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To assess the consequence of different degrees of missing primary endpoint data for randomized controlled trials and to find the influence factors. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to Nov 30, 2023. We included trials of the drug-coated balloon/drug-eluted stent with angiographic outcomes as the primary endpoint. The tipping-point analysis was used to deal with the missing data for the primary endpoint. The inconsistency rate, tipping-point standardized effect size (SES) and tipping-point ratio were used to assess the result robustness. Results: A total of 101 trials were included, which had 109 trial comparisons. Among them, 89 (81.7%) comparisons had superior/non-inferior conclusions (H Conclusion: A high dropout rate and inflated target effect size could cause an unreliable result. We emphasize a robust evaluation of the results for clinical trials with missing data for the primary endpoint.
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.