Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2014 Nov 19:14:118.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-118.

Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals

Melanie L Bell  1 , Mallorie Fiero, Nicholas J Horton, Chiu-Hsieh Hsu
Affiliations
Review

Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals

Melanie L Bell et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: Missing outcome data is a threat to the validity of treatment effect estimates in randomized controlled trials. We aimed to evaluate the extent, handling, and sensitivity analysis of missing data and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in top tier medical journals, and compare our findings with previous reviews related to missing data and ITT in RCTs.

Methods: Review of RCTs published between July and December 2013 in the BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine, excluding cluster randomized trials and trials whose primary outcome was survival.

Results: Of the 77 identified eligible articles, 73 (95%) reported some missing outcome data. The median percentage of participants with a missing outcome was 9% (range 0 - 70%). The most commonly used method to handle missing data in the primary analysis was complete case analysis (33, 45%), while 20 (27%) performed simple imputation, 15 (19%) used model based methods, and 6 (8%) used multiple imputation. 27 (35%) trials with missing data reported a sensitivity analysis. However, most did not alter the assumptions of missing data from the primary analysis. Reports of ITT or modified ITT were found in 52 (85%) trials, with 21 (40%) of them including all randomized participants. A comparison to a review of trials reported in 2001 showed that missing data rates and approaches are similar, but the use of the term ITT has increased, as has the report of sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions: Missing outcome data continues to be a common problem in RCTs. Definitions of the ITT approach remain inconsistent across trials. A large gap is apparent between statistical methods research related to missing data and use of these methods in application settings, including RCTs in top medical journals.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Gravel J, Opatrny L, Shapiro S. The intention-to-treat approach in randomized controlled trials: are authors saying what they do and doing what they say? Clin Trials. 2007;4(4):350–356. doi: 10.1177/1740774507081223. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hollis S, Campbell F. What is meant by intention to treat analysis? survey of published randomised controlled trials. Br Med J. 1999;319(7211):670–674. doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7211.670. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Altman DG. Missing outcomes in randomized trials: addressing the dilemma. Open Medicine. 2009;3(2):e51–e53. - PMC - PubMed
    1. White IR, Horton NJ, Carpenter J, Pocock SJ. Strategy for intention to treat analysis in randomised trials with missing outcome data. BMJ. 2011;342:d40. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d40. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bell ML, Fairclough DL. Practical and statistical issues in missing data for longitudinal patient reported outcomes. Stat Methods Med Res. 2014;23(5):440–459. doi: 10.1177/0962280213476378. - DOI - PubMed
Pre-publication history
    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/14/118/prepub

LinkOut - more resources