| Ref ID | 436 |
| First Author | L. M. Spineli |
| Journal | BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2018 |
| URL | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6201503/pdf/12874_2018_Article_576.pdf |
| Keywords |
• General medical • Protocols • Missing data • Network meta-analysis |
| Problem(s) |
• Failure to address missing outcome data in analyses • No registered or published protocol |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Germany |
| Aim | To assess the prevalence, reporting and handling of missing outcome data in systematic reviews with network meta-analysis and acknowledgement of their impact on the conclusions. Systematic reviews comparing at least three interventions and published from January 2009 until March 2017 were eligible. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | 72% did not mention whether a protocol was available; 17% mentioned that a protocol was developed but they did not make the protocol available. Only 16% reviews explicitly defined (either in their protocol or publication) missing outcome data however 70% of reviews explicitly reported that there was missing outcome data in the included trials. 56% applied at least one strategy to address missing outcome data in their analysis. Overall, there was insufficient information in most systematic reviews with network meta-analysis to judge the actual strategy applied to handle missing outcome data. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 387 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 893 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |