Reporting and handling missing outcome data in mental health: a systematic review of Cochrane systematic reviews and meta‐analyses

Publisher： John Wiley & Sons Inc

E-ISSN： 1759-2887|6|2|175-187

ISSN： 1759-2879

Source： RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, Vol.6, Iss.2, 2015-06, pp. : 175-187

Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.

Previous Menu Next

Abstract

ObjectivesThe purpose of the study was to provide empirical evidence about the reporting of methodology to address missing outcome data and the acknowledgement of their impact in Cochrane systematic reviews in the mental health field.MethodsSystematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews after January 1, 2009 by three Cochrane Review Groups relating to mental health were included.ResultsOne hundred ninety systematic reviews were considered. Missing outcome data were present in at least one included study in 175 systematic reviews. Of these 175 systematic reviews, 147 (84%) accounted for missing outcome data by considering a relevant primary or secondary outcome (e.g., dropout). Missing outcome data implications were reported only in 61 (35%) systematic reviews and primarily in the discussion section by commenting on the amount of the missing outcome data. One hundred forty eligible meta‐analyses with missing data were scrutinized. Seventy‐nine (56%) of them had studies with total dropout rate between 10 and 30%. One hundred nine (78%) meta‐analyses reported to have performed intention‐to‐treat analysis by including trials with imputed outcome data. Sensitivity analysis for incomplete outcome data was implemented in less than 20% of the meta‐analyses.ConclusionsReporting of the techniques for handling missing outcome data and their implications in the findings of the systematic reviews are suboptimal. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.