Missing data in randomized controlled trials testing palliative interventions pose a significant risk of bias and loss of power: a systematic review and meta-analyses.

Publication Type:
Journal Article
Citation:
J Clin Epidemiol, 2016, 74 pp. 57 - 65
Issue Date:
2016-06
Full metadata record
Files in This Item:
Filename Description Size
1-s2.0-S089543561500579X-main.pdfPublished Version449.11 kB
Adobe PDF
OBJECTIVES: To assess the risk posed by missing data (MD) to the power and validity of trials evaluating palliative interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of MD in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of palliative interventions in participants with life-limiting illnesses was conducted, and random-effects meta-analyses and metaregression were performed. CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE (2009-2014) were searched with no language restrictions. RESULTS: One hundred and eight RCTs representing 15,560 patients were included. The weighted estimate for MD at the primary endpoint was 23.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 19.3, 27.4). Larger MD proportions were associated with increasing numbers of questions/tests requested (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% CI 1.05, 1.35) and with longer study duration (OR, 1.09; 95% CI 1.02, 1.17). Meta-analysis found evidence of differential rates of MD between trial arms, which varied in direction (OR, 1.04; 95% CI 0.90, 1.20; I(2) 35.9, P = 0.001). Despite randomization, MD in the intervention arms (vs. control) were more likely to be attributed to disease progression unrelated to the intervention (OR, 1.31; 95% CI 1.02, 1.69). This was not the case for MD due to death (OR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.78, 1.08). CONCLUSION: The overall proportion and differential rates and reasons for MD reduce the power and potentially introduce bias to palliative care trials.
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: