| Ref ID | 144 |
| First Author | E. A. Akl |
| Journal | BMJ OPEN |
| Year Of Publishing | 2015 |
| URL | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4593136/pdf/bmjopen-2015-009368.pdf |
| Keywords |
• Missing data • General medical • Risk of bias • Non-Cochrane reviews • Cochrane |
| Problem(s) |
• Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews • Ignores setting or context of included studies which limits review applicability • Flawed risk of bias undertaken • Failure to address missing outcome data in analyses |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Lebanon |
| Aim | To assess how Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews report missing data for dichotomous outcomes, handle such data in the analysis and assess the risk of associated bias from a sample published in 2010. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | Of 98 Cochrane and 102 included non-Cochrane reviews, 47% and 7% (p<0.0001), respectively, reported on the number of participants with missing data, and 41% and 9% reported a plan for handling missing categorical data. 65% of reviews assessed risk of bias associated with missing data; this was associated with Cochrane reviews (relative to non- Cochrane: OR=6.63; 95% CI 2.50 to 17.57, p=0.0001), and the use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology (OR=5.02; 95% CI 1.02 to 24.75, p=0.047). |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 202 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 2328 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |