Related Experiment Video

Updated: Apr 20, 2026

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index

Published on: January 8, 2020

Impact of missing participant data for dichotomous outcomes on pooled effect estimates in systematic reviews: a

Elie A Akl¹, Lara A Kahale, Arnav Agarwal

¹Department of Internal Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology Unit, American University of Beirut Medical Center, PO Box: 11-0236, Riad-El-Solh, Beirut 1107, 2020, Beirut, Lebanon. ea32@aub.edu.lb.

Systematic Reviews

|November 27, 2014

Abstract

Background:

There is no consensus on how authors conducting meta-analysis should deal with trial participants with missing outcome data. The objectives of this study are to assess in Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews: (1) which categories of trial participants the systematic review authors consider as having missing participant data (MPD), (2) how trialists reported on participants with missing outcome data in trials, (3) whether systematic reviewer authors actually dealt with MPD in their meta-analyses of dichotomous outcomes consistently with their reported methods, and (4) the impact of different methods of dealing with MPD on pooled effect estimates in meta-analyses of dichotomous outcomes.

Methods/Design:

We will conduct a methodological study of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews. Eligible systematic reviews will include a group-level meta-analysis of a patient-important dichotomous efficacy outcome, with a statistically significant effect estimate. Teams of two reviewers will determine eligibility and subsequently extract information from each eligible systematic review in duplicate and independently, using standardized, pre-piloted forms. The teams will then use a similar process to extract information from the trials included in the meta-analyses of interest. We will assess first which categories of trial participants the systematic reviewers consider as having MPD. Second, we will assess how trialists reported on participants with missing outcome data in trials. Third, we will compare what systematic reviewers report having done, and what they actually did, in dealing with MPD in their meta-analysis. Fourth, we will conduct imputation studies to assess the effects of different methods of dealing with MPD on the pooled effect estimates of meta-analyses. We will specifically calculate for each method (1) the percentage of systematic reviews that lose statistical significance and (2) the mean change of effect estimates across systematic reviews.

Discussion:

The impact of different methods of dealing with MPD on pooled effect estimates will help judge the associated risk of bias in systematic reviews. Our findings will inform recommendations regarding what assumptions for MPD should be used to test the robustness of meta-analytical results.

More Related Videos

Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment

Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment

Published on: April 19, 2024

Related Concept Videos

Bias in Epidemiological Studies

Bias in Epidemiological Studies

Biases can arise at various stages of research, from study design and data collection to analysis and interpretation. Recognizing and addressing these biases is essential to ensure the validity and reliability of epidemiological findings.Broadly speaking, biases in epidemiology fall into three main categories: selection bias, information bias, and confounding. A more detailed description of possible biases is:

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

Biopharmaceutical studies constitute a vital field aiming to enhance drug delivery methods and refine therapeutic approaches, drawing upon diverse interdisciplinary knowledge. In research methodologies, the choice between controlled and non-controlled studies significantly influences the study's reliability and accuracy.
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...

Odds Ratio

Odds Ratio

The odds ratio (OR) is a statistical measure used extensively in epidemiology and research to quantify the strength of association between exposure and outcome across different groups. Unlike relative risk, which compares the probabilities of an event occurring, the odds ratio compares the odds of an event occurring in the exposed group to the odds of it occurring in the unexposed group. The odds, in this context, are calculated as the probability of the event happening divided by the...

Confounding in Epidemiological Studies

Confounding in Epidemiological Studies

Confounding in statistical epidemiology represents a pivotal challenge, referring to the distortion in the perceived relationship between an exposure and an outcome due to the presence of a third variable, known as a confounder. This variable is associated with both the exposure and the outcome but is not a direct link in their causal chain. Its presence can lead to erroneous interpretations of the exposure's effect, either exaggerating or underestimating the true association. This...

Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups

Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups

Survival analysis is a cornerstone of medical research, used to evaluate the time until an event of interest occurs, such as death, disease recurrence, or recovery. Unlike standard statistical methods, survival analysis is particularly adept at handling censored data—instances where the event has not occurred for some participants by the end of the study or remains unobserved. To address these unique challenges, specialized techniques like the Kaplan-Meier estimator, log-rank test, and...

Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding

Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding

Confounding is a critical issue in epidemiological studies, often leading to misleading conclusions about associations between exposures and outcomes. It occurs when the relationship between the exposure and the outcome is mixed with the effects of other factors that influence the outcome. Given that, addressing confounding is of high importance for drawing accurate inferences in research.
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Use of Thresholds for Rating Certainty of Evidence with the GRADE Framework: A Systematic Survey of Systematic Reviews.

Journal of clinical epidemiology·2026

Long-term experience with emicizumab in people with hemophilia A in the Canadian Bleeding Disorders Registry.

Blood advances·2026

Evaluation of the determinants of factor VIII and factor IX levels, bleeding score, and health-related quality of life in the Canadian hemophilia carriers (CHiC) study.

Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH·2026

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Clinical medicine insights. Pediatrics·2026

Understanding Transformer-Based Classifications of Medical Text Using a Large Language Model for the Attribution of Feature Importance: Proof-of-Concept Algorithm Development and Validation Study.

JMIR medical informatics·2026

Perioperative Outcomes in Factor XI Deficiency: A Systematic Review.

Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia·2026

See all related articles