Cited by 52Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

Reporting missing participant data in randomised trials: systematic survey of the methodological literature and a proposed guide

Open access
Akl, Elie A, Shawwa, Khaled, Kahale, Lara A, Agoritsas, Thomas, Brignardello-Petersen, Romina, Busse, Jason W, Carrasco–Labra, Alonso, Ebrahim, Shanil +8 more·2015·BMJ Open

Abstract

Objectives: We conducted a systematic survey of the methodological literature to identify recommended approaches for how and what randomised clinical trial (RCT) authors should report on missing participant data and, on the basis of these approaches, to propose guidance for RCT authors. Methods: We defined missing participant data (MPD) as missing outcome data for trial participants. We considered both categorical and continuous outcome data. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register for articles in which authors proposed approaches to reporting MPD from RCTs. We selected eligible articles independently and in duplicate and extracted data in duplicate. Using an iterative process of discussion and revisions, we used the findings to develop guidance. Results: Of 10 501 unique citations identified, 13 articles reporting on 10 approaches proved eligible. The identified approaches recommend reporting the following aspects (from most to least frequently recommended): number of participants with MPD (n=10), reasons for MPD (n=7), methods used to handle MPD in the analysis (n=4), flow of participants (n=3), pattern of missingness (eg, whether at random) (n=3), differences in rates of MPD between trial arms (n=2), differences between participants with and without MPD (n=2), results of any sensitivity analyses (n=2), implication of MPD on interpreting the results (n=2) and methods used to prevent missing data (n=1). We propose a guide with nine items related to reporting the number, reasons, patterns, analytical methods and interpretation of MPD. Conclusions: Most identified approaches invite trial authors to report the extent of MPD and the underlying reasons. Fewer approaches focus on reporting missingness patterns, methods for handling MPD and implications of MPD on results. Our proposed guidance could help RCT authors to better report, and readers to better identify participants with missing data.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008431

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [20]Troxel AB, Fairclough DL, Curran D Statistical analysis of quality of life with missing data in cancer clinical trials. Stat Med 1998; 17: 653– 66. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980315/15)17:5/7<653::AID-SIM812>3.0.CO;2-M 9549814 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Akl, E. A., Shawwa, K., Kahale, L. A., Agoritsas, T., Brignardello-Petersen, R., Busse, J. W., Carrasco–Labra, A., Ebrahim, S., Johnston, B. C., Neumann, I., Sola, I., Sun, X., Vandvik, P., Zhang, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., & Guyatt, G. H.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • American University of Beirut (LB)
  • Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  • Hospital for Sick Children (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (CL)
  • Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau-CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP- IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain
  • Sichuan University (CN)
  • Innlandet Hospital Trust (NO)
Corresponding author
Akl, Elie A
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2015-12
Volume
5
Issue
12
Pages
e008431
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2258698375
Cited by
52
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3
FWCI
3.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Universidad de Chile (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
randomized controlled trials, reporting guidelines, missingness patterns, missing data handling, sensitivity analysis
MeSH terms
Data Accuracy, Humans, Patient Dropouts, Research Design, Bias, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Guidelines as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review