Potential impact of missing outcome data on treatment effects in systematic reviews: imputation study

Ref ID 491
First Author L. A. Kahale
Journal BMJ
Year Of Publishing 2020
URL https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/370/bmj.m2898.full.pdf
Keywords Cochrane
Missing data
Statistical
General medical
Problem(s) Failure to address missing outcome data in analyses
Failure to define clinically meaningful outcomes
Number of systematic reviews included 100
Summary of Findings The median change in the relative effect estimate varied from 0% to 30.4% (implausible assumptions) and from 1.4% to 7.0%. (plausible assumptions). Meta-analyses crossing the threshold of the null effect varied from 1% (best case scenario) to 60% (worst case scenario) and 26% changed direction with the worst case scenario. Using an imputation approach based on information missingness odds ratio, meta-analyses crossing the threshold of the null effect varied from 6% to 22%, and 2% changed direction with the most stringent. Judgments of whether changes in effect estimate are clinically significant requires using minimal clinically important difference, which varies by clinical question.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Yes
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes